CDC,
The problem with choosing a design concept is that it ignores the execution, which is almost always the more important factor. Quads do not sound very much like Soundlabs, yet both are electrostats. Vandy's model 2 doesn't sound like any Thiel that I've heard, yet both trumpet the exclusive use of 1st order x-overs. Ohm and MBL couldn't sound more dissimilar if they tried, yet both are omnis. Whichever design approach is employed, octave to octave balance can vary all over the board and this alone will be very, very audible.
Re: Jordan's specific comments. Ironically, his observations were almost surely based on on-axis frequency response measurements to the exclusion of power response measurements. In most environments, omnipolar speakers will sound relatively "thinner" (more treble energy for a given amount of mid and bass) than direct radiators, if you measure for flat on-axis response. On-axis measurements don't capture all of the reflected energy so the omnis are providing more treble energy than the on-axis measurement reflects (sorry for the pun). Of course, as Jordan notes, some of this will be room dependant.
OTOH, if you measure for flat power response, the omnis are likely to show a better correlation between measured data and what you actually hear. They will not sound "thin" unless they measure "thin". My observations on this matter are based on my own experience using both on-axis and power measurements in my room with speakers using just about every radiation patern you can think of. I'd add that this point doesn't validate the use of power response, it merely points out that different designs tend to perform best on different tests.
My main point here is that using any FR test measurement to make a point like Jordan's is deceiving. No single test that I've ever seen is particularly reliable in predicting the way a speaker will sound in a given listening room. And the test you choose will tend to either validate or diminish the performance of one design vs. another, irrespective of the way that said speaker actually sounds.
I'm pretty sure that Ted Jordan knows this all too well. His comments should not be taken for an attempt to educate, but rather should be understood as an attempt to market his product. More power to him - and you could do worse than buying one of the better single driver Jordan based loudspeakers, like Carolina Audio.
Marty |
CDC,
Regarding omnis and added reverb.
You could look at this another way: Every speaker is an omni.
For signals below 150hz or so. So called "Omnis" merely continue this radiation pattern throughout the audible frequency range. From this viewpoint, your question should read:
"What happens to the intended reverb on a recording when you effectively remove that intended reverb by restricting the radiation pattern above 150 hz?"
It is your phrasing that begs the question. There is no "default" reproduction dispersion pattern - unless you believe that the recording was intended for replay in a specific environment. That's because every room impacts the response of every speaker system differently, with a single commonality: There is - generally speaking - an increasingly destructive impact as frequency drops into the bass range, where all speakers provide omnipolar dispersion. Bummer.
As to my opinion of "waveguides", the phrase is used in many ways, so it's hard to respond. I assume that you mean a (truncated) horn, as this is IME the most common usage. My (rather limited) experience here is pretty similar to that for other designs. Zingalis - which I own - sound different from SAP and Avantegarde, the two other horn systems with which I'm rather familiar. OTOH, the later two are full blown horns, rather than truncated "waveguides" so we may not be talking strictly apples to apples here.
Like the broad similarities in imaging between omni designs, I would note that different horn/waveguide designs can share the ability to mitigate damage from difficult rooms or difficult positioning in better rooms. The effect of this (obviously) varies from room to room. In a well designed room, it may prove either beneficial or disadvantageous - or both, varying with your program choices.
Beyond that, I'd say that these designs vary as widely in overall tonality as most other designs. If your room presents issues, then find a speaker with appropriate restrictions to dispersion. This might mean a waveguide/horn or maybe a planar design with little output to the sides. Just recognize that this doesn't mean that such a design will be superior in a different environment. Horses for courses, you could say.
And, either way, you have to then find an example that works for you tonally.
Again IMO and IME.
Marty |
Bond,
One other thought: I've measured the in-room response of my Ohms and they are actually very neutral relative to many of the other high end speakers that I've owned. They are neither elevated nor underdamped through the upper bass, which may cause them to sound "leaner" than some other speakers. Similarly, they are not "goosed" through the presence region, which can cause them to sound a bit more recessed or less dynamic than many other high end designs. If your previous speakers had both of these characteristics, you might perceive the change of tonal balance in the Ohms as "mid-range forward".
Just a thought.
Marty |
Zkz,
I had to laugh a bit when I saw your post. I'm a big fan of Blake/Froom and Los Lobos. However.....
I've always referred to "Colossal Head" as "Colassal Bore".
By far, my least favorite Lobos record and seeing it performed live at the Lobos typically crushing SPL was one of the more painful evenings I can ever recall.
Glad you enjoy it, but I'll file this one under "agree to disagree".
Marty
BTW, IIRC Mitchell Froom once toured with Richard Thompson supporting solo guitar with amazing accompaniment on keys. Many, many years back, but a much more pleasant concert memory. |
Zkz,
If you're a guitar lovin' kind of guy, you're in for a treat!
Pardon me all, I'm going a bit OT here.
You're starting down an amazing road. RT is a stunning - and I mean STUNNING - guitar player. Both acoustic and, IMHO, especially electric. He's also a terrific lyricist and...let's say, very effective (if not particularly beautiful)... singer.
The 3 disc set "Watching The Dark" is a great overview of his career and the 2 disc live set "Two Letter Words" is a fine intro to RT's live fireworks. The latter might only be available through the Merchandise button on Beesweb.com, RT's site.
Enjoy.
Marty |
Finsup,
I use the Velodyne SMS-1 to room correct a pair of Rythmik subwoofers. My Ohm 100s are crossed to the subs at 75hz by an analog NHT x-2. The "subwoofer out" signal from the x-2 goes to the digital Velo unit and on into the subs (no digital processing in the main signal path, FWIW). Two bassbusters handle the excess energy between about 80hz and 125 hz in my room. Side reflections are dispersed by a wall of irregularly shelved LPs on one side and a bay window on the other. The wall behind the speakers is 2/3 covered with absorbtive and dispersion materials.
This set-up produces really good results, both subjectively and measured.
Marty |
Tim,
I've written pretty extensively on the Velodyne SMS-1 sub controller. You may want to search these threads and check it out. Unless you are using DD series Velodyne subs, this device is absolutely transformative. It may take some work, but a decent sub (or 2 or 3) with an SMS-1 will get smooth bass response in even a difficult room (like mine) and seamless crossover to your mains, to boot.
Good Luck
Marty |
Aktchi,
FWIW, I've had the Verity Parsifal/Encore and the Merlin VSM (uprgrade to near current status) in the same system as my Ohm 100/Rythmik sub system. I can't compare the speakers with the subs on-line and I only ran the 100s full range for a brief time - but here's the comparison off that short full range audition:
ALL THAT FOLLOWS IS JUST MHO:
The Ohm is about as neutral tonally as the Merlin (to my ear, anyway). It's more neutral than the Verity, which is to say that the P/E is noticably warm in tonality and consequently often sounds more acoustically "lifelike" than a nearly dead neutral speaker like the Ohm or Merlin(particularly on a lot of source material that leans bright - i.e 90+% of pop and rock recordings).
The Ohm is less revealing of things upstream than either the Merlin (considerable margin) or the P/E (noticeable margin).
The Ohm is less dramatically dynamic ("jump factor") than either the VSM or P/E.
The Ohm goes a bit deeper in the bass than the P/E and is about as extended as the VSM.
All of these speakers are remarkably "seamless" in their presentation.
The Ohms might be a bit "dry" at the top vs the P/E - that is "might", as in subtle.
The Ohms image with both specificity (as do the VSM and the P/E) but with a sense of weight and body that the other speakers can't quite match. It is this quality which really distinguishes the Ohms.
Since I use (room corrected) subs (troublesome room issues), the bass comparison isn't particularly important to me in this application, so MY OWN PERSONAL bottom line is:
The Ohms are about as neutral as it gets. When run full range, they have real bass extention - sufficient form most recordings. They don't have quite the dynamic jump of the best competition. They aren't as "transparent" as the best I've heard, but they aren't slouches either. They are as seamless as I've heard. Their top end is very good, but some who are more sensitive in this range may demand a half demerit vs. the best competition. Their imaging and staging is unique to Omnis and that provides the special character that makes the speakers essentially irreplaceable to some listeners.
As always, YMMV
Marty |
Bond,
I pretty much agree with everything you've written here. I'd only add that the Merlins are more revealing of upstream events and have a dynamic "jump" - especially with tube amps - that the Ohms lack. Just MHO.
Overall, I'd say that these are both outstanding speakers, but the Merlins do some things "better" while the Ohms do other things "better". "Better", in this case, meaning more to my taste.
The Merlin is a wonderful speaker. It is also a premium priced, premium finished luxury product. If you can live with the appearance, there's little doubt in my mind that the Ohms represent excellent value offering an appealling mix of performance strengths at a more manageable price point.
Marty |
It's funny, this could be a (GASP!) new thread: Tiger Woods, fidelity and Ohm.
I recently ended an 8+ year early retirement to (GASP!) go back to work. As a result, my music time has shrunk from app. 4 hrs a day (split between listening and piano and/or guitar practice) to about 1 hr. a day.
Although, in theory, I rotate my Verity P/E, Merlin VSM, and Maggie MMGs into the system periodically, that was slowing down, anyway. Now with the time crunch (okay, piano is going, I'm hopeless anyway), I may just bail on the other speakers.
Anyone in SoCal looking for a deal? I guess I'm an Ohm guy, now.
Marty |
Kristian may be a trained listener, but I'm a trained measurer. In my listening room, the Ohm 100s are unusually flat (on-axis at the listening position) with a smooth, gently falling FR from north of 10khz down to below 150hz - where destructive room effects take over. I address those room effects with hemholtz devices and EQ'd subwoofers. Bottom line: this is an usually neutral design (same caveat: measured on axis in my space) from the upper end of the bass on up and, subjectively from the upper bass through the upper limits of my hearing (about 14khz, last I checked).
The distinguishing characteristic, of course, is the omni-directional dispersion pattern. Conceptually, this should smooth off-axis response, but, in truth, I've never confirmed that. I can say with some confidence that the spacial impact (can't tell you how to measure that!) dominates the subjective impression that this design makes. The final decision will likely be subjective and have little to do with "sub optimally flat FR", unless the listener in question objects to this particular (gentle) deviation from dead neutral.
The "gushing" for Ohms upon first listening is almost certainly due to the "omni effect". MBLs (a subjectively less neutral design to my ear) get the same kind of reaction - WOW! Some love it at first, then tire of it and move on. Others stay the course. I'm just about a year and a half into my time with the Ohms and generally prefer them to several other highly regarded (and IMO fine sounding in their own right) speakers that I also own, each of which cost many times as much as the 100s.
This is the preference of my "somewhat trained" (app. three hours/day at the piano and/or guitar over the last 2 years) ear. I accord my opinion no more weight than any other (Kristian's included), but I do hold the measurements in high regard.
Marty |
I'd tend to agree that active designs address some real issues with a great solution. OTOH, there are some pretty crappy active speakers out there, too. Stop into any place that sells pro audio gear and you'll hear tremendous variation between the various brands of active monitors they sell.
There are also issues that may be far more important than distortion and/or compression caused by passive x-overs, depending on the installation. I'd always hesitate to endorse a single design approach because listener priorities and room considerations vary so much. That said, I'd still prefer to see my x-overs ahead of the power amp whenever possible, I'm just not willing (at this time) to trade away all other considerations to achieve that goal.
Marty |
Kristian,
Of course there is a trade-away, although it may not be the direct result of the active design vs a passive design. The real world trade away is whatever particular characteristic you find compelling in a particular passive speaker that you can't find in any active speaker. In the case of Ohms, I am unaware of any active omnidirectionals. Similarly, some may prefer the specific tonal qualities of the "fill in the blank" and can't find an active equivalent. IOW, I suspect that, if I had to choose between equally well executed passive and active versions of the same speaker design, I'd generally choose the active version. In the real world, this is rarely the choice.
Bottom line: don't fall so in love with your theory regarding the superiority of active designs. They have their advantages, but I doubt that you really believe that every active design is superior to every passive design. The little NHT active sub/sat system is a great value that undoubtedly offers very low distortion within its operational limits (and at its price point), but there are definitely passive designs, even with the attendant higher distortion, that I clearly prefer. I suspect that you'd agree (who knows, maybe not?) Minimizing x-over impact is NOT the only game here. To your priorities, it may trump all other considerations. To mine, it does not. Note, I DO actively cross to subwoofers, so I get your main point here and, to a more limited degree than you , share this priority.
Newbee, don't confuse published "flat response" (which is usually measured anechoically) with flat in-room response. The former will, just as you note, almost always sound too bright. Truly flat in-room is also usually a touch bright for my taste. I actually prefer the gently falling in-room response of my Ohms (and my Verity P/E, for that matter) to really flat in-room response.
As to direct FR vs power response, I have limited experience with the latter, but I do find that the former - if executed carefully - conforms pretty closely with what I hear. However, the point is conceded, simple on-axis FR isn't the entire story either. I'd also note that I never said it was. I merely mentioned that, as caveated in my OP - IN MY ROOM, MEASURED DIRECTLY ON-AXIS - the dispositive factor in evaluating Ohm 100s is unlikely to be "sub optimally flat FR" per Kristian's OP, but rather the perceived impact of the omnipolar dispersion.
Indeed, my main point was/is that FR, compression, distortion, etc - whatever your measurable - isn't the only factor. Speaker evaluation will always have a subjective component. There are also some pretty good tools (i.e. room wizard) to help with the objective side. As Kristian points out, distorion meausrement are another good objective tool. Hopefully, each contributes to any informed overall evaluation of any given speaker system.
Marty |
Bob,
If you do not want flat, what do you want?
Output gently falling as frequency increases from app 100hz to 8 or 10khz, flat above that. Flat to gently rising below 100hz to the lowest limit of system response (app. 25hz in my case). Tricky to achieve without multiple and/or EQ'd subs.
Simply a personal preference. We're talking a couple a three db spread over just over 6 octaves (with something vaguely like a 2 db offset rising in the bottom 2 1/2 octaves) for the most "natural" sound in my room (and, actually, the other two rooms that I've measured extensively) to my ears. All of the listening rooms I've measured strike me as just a touch bright when response is perfectly flat - so I chalk this up to personal preference.
Marty |
Have I been pinged?
Marty
PS I usually try to post when I feel like I've got something (that might be) beneficial to add to the conversation. Many times, I find that I agree with what's been posted so I just sit it out. But......I'm still out there. |
Venue is a tough one. I don't attend much classical these days, so jazz clubs are the main reference point for acoustic music. I always choose them on the basis of the performers and the rooms are usually small and oddly shaped with acoustics that are generally "awkward". Vibrato in Bel Air is an exception, but straight unamplified performances haven't been the norm there.
I've been in LA over a dozen years now and the Greek Theater is probably my favorite for amplified music - programming runs all over the place, but the sound is uniformly excellent, especially for an outdoor venue. My luck at The Hollywood Bowl has been a little less consistent, but still not bad by any means.
The Gibson (at Universal) is pretty good and the Hermosa Beach PAC, and Thousand Oaks PAC are both excellent, but programming is spotty, at best. Our local club, The Canyon, gets some great r'n'r talent, but is often way too loud for good sound.
I saw more classical music when I was in New York (for about 2 decades prior) and the old Carnegie was definitely the most memorable. Pop music venues covered the gamut with Tramps supplying the happiest memmories. I just about lived in The Bottom Line (a 2 minute walk from my place) and unamplified shows usually sounded quite good. Rock shows were all over the board.
My taste in a speaker's tonal balance is not a function of a single hall, but rather a general sense from the whole range of experiences. From that, I find that a lot of high end gear is "goosed" in the mis-bass and presence region so that "impact" is enhanced relative to the live experience. Ohms are IMHO voiced closer to "the real thing" than most.
Marty |
On a related note:
Understandably, there is something of an obsession with "accuracy" in the A'phile community. The idea is great, but how do you ever really know what's on a record? That information doesn't exist as "sound" without SOME playback system, and even the mastering set-up (which itself would sound radically different in your listening room) isn't a perfect reproduction reference - except with records that were made in that studio and mastered on that system.
I had the experience of being the "Executive Producer" (this means that I paid for a money losing proposition) on a jazz recording about 10 years ago. I was present for a fair bit of the sessions and can tell you that identifying the most "accurate" reproduction on a home system would be highly, highly subjective - even with the unusual benefit of being present at the particular performance as my reference. So, I try to take the holy grail "accuracy" thing with a grain of salt.
I might be more judgemental if there was any kind of meaningful uniformity in the sound of source material, but IME there isn't. Given the number of crappy sounding recordings that I own (including many, if not most, of my favorites), it's hard to expect any system to sound really good on a regular basis. I suppose that I end up listening disproportionately to those recordings that sound best on my main system and relegate the rest of my preferred music to either the distributed system in my home or the CD changer in my car.
So, just get me reasonably good octave to octave balance (relative to the -preferably extended- bandwidth of the speaker) and capture a sense of live players in space and I'm usually pretty happy. IMHO, it's remarkable how many high end designs are fair to pretty darn good on both counts and how few (including the Ohms) are really exceptional.
But I do recognize that this is just my take on a very subjective experience, so - Once Again, just MHO.
Marty |
Bond,
Congrats on the new pre. Only one word of warning: Adults have been known to pee in the pool, too.
Marty
PS Not sure what that means, but I liked your metaphor. |
Bond - I got YOUR point. It was mine that didn't make any sense (but sounded kinda funny, so I posted it, anyway). |
I'm sure that the "jaw drop" thing was a response to the omni presentation. You'll get that effect straight away and it does make its mark. It's only after you "listen through" that striking first impression that you get to things like dynamics, tonal balance et. al. I suspect that most listeners will find the Ohms really impressive at first listen, even if they're poorly matched in a system. If they're well matched, then you've got a good thing going for the long term.
Just speculating.
Marty |
Ah, tonewood....
http://www.edroman.com/customshop/wood/main.htm
Some interesting stuff here. |
Stph,
There aren't that many omnis out there. As to the best known brands, here's one thought:
The big Ohms don't cost enough. The big MBL costs too much.
Just about every reviewer seems to own a pair with a price tag somewhere in between.
Marty
Omnis also stretch the purist notion of "accuracy" since studio and mastering monitors aren't omnidirectional. They're not often dipole planars either, but people seem somehow to have less issue with that delta. |
Moon,
I'd agree with Mapman, the height thing is really recording specific.
One of my favorite "studio-stunt" recordings to demo the imaging capabilities of the Ohms (100s w/ a pair of Rythmik subs in my case) is found on Lindsey Buckingham's "Under The Skin". The track "It was You" bounces grouped/multi-tracked vocals around the stage - left/right, up/down, forward/back. This is not exactly a natural, audiophile approved recording technique, but a dramatic demo of how well the speakers place sources in space.
Similarly, "Q sound" recordings are shown in full glory.
IME, with more traditional recordings, results will vary too much to generalize.
Marty |
Rbf,
Here's the good news:
You're about to experience omnidirectional loudpeakers - and very fine examples of the breed, as it happens. I think almost all listeners are initially struck by the unique spatial presentation characteristic of this design approach. IME, many people immediately fall in love with it, but a few do not. Since the Ohms are sold with an in-home/money back trial period, you'll quickly ascertain which side of the fence you fall on, with limited economic risk.
As to some people bailing after enjoying the speakers for a period of time, well....welcome to the world of audio hobbyists. There are many different ways that manufacturers "skin the cat" and no single approach covers every base. After some period of time, it's not uncommon to want to try something a bit different than what you've been living with...even if you've still got a good thing going.
There's always a certain excitement inherent in something new.
In your case, at the moment, your new relationship will be with the Ohms. If it's a fling, send 'em back. If it feels like a keeper, keep 'em. As to whether or not that lovin' feeling fades over time, I suspect that you'll just have to wait and see.
Congrats on the purchase!
Marty
(Now going on year 5 with Ohm 100s and not looking around, except for the ocassional glance at MBLs). |
There are a few recordings that IMHO show the Ohm imaging trick off to great effect:
You might want check ' em out and see if any click for you. If so, pick one up for early listening. I think any of these will give you a great sense of the Ohm effect at its most dramatic.
Alejandro Escovedo. With These Hands from the CD With These Hands
Original Cast Theme From Shaft
Lindsey Buckingham It Was You from the CDUnder The Skin
Duke Ellington Far East Suite pretty much all tracks
Joan Armatrading Love and Affection from Track Record
These recordings (among many, many others) really allow the Ohm to "light up" the front of the room and create the sense of a performance space within your listening room. It's very cool and a lot of fun.
Marty |
Rich,
I've never heard the Classico, but I have owned Micros and A'Divas and listened to the Gallo Ref extensively. I also own Ohm 100s.
The little guys from Gallo are a different animal entirely, but there is some common ground shared by the Ohms and the wide dispersion Gallo Ref series. That said, the Ohm still sounds quite different than the Gallo Ref - both in the spacial presentation and in tonality. The Gallo is a punchier, more forward design, while the Ohm strikes me (as always, YMMV) as more neutral octave to octave, with a less prominent upper bass range and more "polite" overall presentation.
The thought that struck me was: I'd love to hear an Ohm/Dec style omni "hybrid" that employs that Gallo tweeter instead of the ribbon or dome that you see now. I don't know that it would sound "better", especially since the manufacturers claim to prefer the directional qualities of the tweeter they currently use (surprise!), but the idea of more uniform full range omni dispersion (ala MBL) via such a hybrid strikes me as intriguing.
Marty |
Rbf,
The Velodyne auto EQ is a mess.
It only uses graphic (fixed band) EQ and doesn't incorporate the parametric (variable "Q") capabilities of the software. Get a video monitor and manually tweak all paramaters (x-over point, slope, phase, band center, Q, etc) until you see a pretty flat FR. Tweak by ear from there.
This may not be the best subwoofer out there, but set-up this way it is very good. In all likelihood, you just need to work it a bit.
Good Luck,
Marty
PS If this set-up process doesn't appeal to you, you might think about a preamp (or pre-pro or AVR) with Audyssey. Their auto set-up is IMHO just about flawless. |
Rbf,
IMHO, once you're out of the real budget models, subwoofer set-up is usually more important than the specific choice of subwoofer model (unless you've defied the odds and chosen a truly crappy subwoofer!). Good news - you haven't.
To clarify my post, the Velo sub includes an EQ function. When used automatically, it simply adjusts (IIRC) 6 fixed bands of equal range to eliminate peaks and suckouts. This is a pretty simple approach and IME doesn't work very well.
However, manual EQ allows MUCH more effective adjustment. You can vary the width of each band, vary it's center point, and vary how "steep" the correction is. If you've got a big "hump" centered at, for example 90 hz (not uncommon), you can create a band centered at 90hz and apply correction in the opposite "shape" of the hump. When summed for playback, the combination of the original hump and the "mirror" correction that you've dialed in via manual EQ results in flat FR. Unfortunately, this is only possible via manual EQ and involves a fair bit of work on your part.
All the other stuff - slope, phase, etc. - can also make a huge difference. IME, trial and error, aided by video readout - is the best way to go with Velodyne. In the end, you'll get flat response from the sub and smooth, precisely matched level at the point your cross to your Ohms. If you haven't yet guessed, I'm a huge fan of this approach.
Unfortunately, REALLY GOOD subwoofer set-up is a giant PITA...but also makes a GIANT difference in the end result. The easy way is Audyssey, which includes a very sophisticated auto subwoofer set-up feature. Unfortunately, Audyssey is found mostly in multi channel home theater electronics - which I'm guessing you don't have handy. Shy of switching to Audyssey, you might want to wade thru the manual EQ instructions for your sub (either those in the instruction book or downloaded from the Velo web site).
IME, the process is cumbersome, but worthwhile.
Good luck,
Marty |
Rbf,
I've been out of the market for a bit, so I'm probably not your best resource for that question.
I own Rythmiks, which are terrific, but start at $700+. The very fine, entry level SVS sub is a bit cheaper, but IIRC still north of $500. I understand that Emotiva has one at $500 that looks pretty nice, but I've neither heard it nor seen test results. You might want to search threads here for advice from other folks who are closer to the current market.
Kbuzz,
The issue with Ohm subs (as of app. 4 years ago, when I was looking) was their size. The footprint was substantially bigger than most and I just didn't have the space to accommodate them, so I never auditioned them. I don't know the current models, so I'm not sure if that's still a consideration.
Marty |
Opinions vary on this one.
I set the sub's low pass (and I low cut the mains with an active x-over) just above the highest frequency hump or suckout that I want to EQ away. Basically my approach is to fix the room passively as much as I can, recognizing that below a certain frequency (which varies room to room), passive treatments tend to become ineffective and EQ is the only approach that works (for me, anyway, others may have had different experience here).
Note : EQ is much easier for reducing FR "humps" than it is for filling FR suckouts, so bear that in mind as you decide where to set the x-over point.
I've treated my room with lots of "passive" (including bass-buser type hemholtz devices) treatments, but IME these run out of steam somewhere between 70 ish and 120 ish hz, depending on the room. So I fix what I can passively, set the x-over just where the passive stuff starts to fail and let the EQ do the rest below that frequency.
I set slope, phase etc to get the smoothest response around the x-over point before applying EQ. There are two goals here - smooth overall bass response below the x-over frequency and smoothest response thru the crossover point. The latter helps insure an undetectable "hand-off" from main speaker to subwoofer and is absolutely critical for me. Since there are limited bands of EQ, you may have a judgement call in smoothing overall bass response versus super fine tuning the "hand-off". That is your call on the fly, made only (IME) via trial and error.
Many folks disagree with this approach and prefer a lower x-over point. That has never worked as well for me, but YMMV.
Marty |
JWC,
I can't speak to your Ohm W2s, but I can state that my 100s throw a very wide lateral stage that extends convincingly beyond the speaker position. I do agree, however, that the sense of depth starts at the plane of the speakers and goes back from there. This is the most obvious imaging difference (to my ear) between the Ohm versus the MBL, which extends dramatically forward and back from the plane of the speakers. OTOH, the Ohm sounds much more neutral octave to octave (again MHO) than any of the MBLs that I've auditioned (and that would be most all of 'em).
Not all omnis are created equal.
Marty |
Like wtf, I also keep MMGs to rotate with my Ohm 100s (w/ a pair of Rythmik subs, in both cases). Additionally, I have two very high quality full-range speakers available for spot duty. Any of these set-ups will produce -IMHO- outstanding results, however, the Ohms still see 90+% of the active duty. |
Because I use an Onkyo pre-pro (Audyssey) with my Ohm 100/twin Rythmik subwoofer system, I recently got hold of an old Onkyo 508 amp, cheap. It's a very cool looking beast (large illuminated meters) and provides 250ish wpc to the Ohms. (I had the amps re-capped, due to their age - it was still cheap after the surgery.) They sound glorious.
I'll continue to rotate amps thru the system because it's fun, but the Onkyo/Onkyo como has proven surprisingly satisfying.
Marty |
Over the past several years I've used an ARC VT 130se, Cary 805, Prima Luna monos, Bel Canto integrated, Pathos integrated, and one or two others with the Ohms. Given that I've also rolled a half dozen different output tubes thru the PL (kt 66 being my favorite with the Ohms), I feel like there's been adequate variety in the speakers' diet. Different flavors from each amp, but the Onkyo is certainly acquitting itself well.
Marty |
Jim,
I respectfully disagree with you on the merits of the "speakers to match the room" idea. Unless you happen to have an anechoic chamber for a listening room, you're always hearing a combination of the speaker and the room. Below 150ish hertz, you usually hear mainly the room. Tailoring the bass balance of a speaker to the room size makes a ton of sense to me. BTW, you often see a debate in these threads about bass balance for this speaker model or that. (I can't believe you like the Acme model XYZ, it has way too much (little) bass!). I always wonder what the poster would say if he heard the same speaker he's trashing for bass balance in a much bigger (or smaller) room.
As to your other point (Why aren't omnis more popular?), that's a good question. Here's another question:
Let's pick a # and assume that of the next 100 folks who visit Audiogon, 10 or fewer have heard omnis. If the other 9o were to audition a well designed omni (like Ohm or MBL), how many would want to switch. Certainly NOT all 90. But I suspect that a fair number would think hard about it. Why the market hasn't addressed that opportunity, I don't really have a good idea.
Marty |
Finsup,
I use my Ohm 100s with Rythmik subs. I use an Audyssey enabled Onkyo pre-pro to integrate the subs and provide room correction. The system sounds awfully good and I think it's going on 2 years without a component change - probably a personal best!
Marty |
Odd note of the day:
After a ton of experimentation with room position, my Ohms ended up sitting atop a pair of subwoofers. The added height seemed to improve imaging and the subs (plus Audyssey) made any impact on the bass output irrelevant. Of course, this decision led to a ton more experimentation: What goes between the top of the subs and the bottom of the Ohms?
I tried tile, marble slabs, wood shelves, with hard cones, soft rubber footers, etc. I ended up using one tick towel per side. It doesn't make a ton of sense, but it seems to damp the vibration from the sub while also keeping the speakers stable.
I understand that this one flies in the face of audiophile dogma, but it worked better than anything else I tried and better than traditional on floor placement.
Go figure.
Marty |
Peter,
I see this as a potential marketing mistake. At the end of the day, this is a hobbyist purchase. People frequently base their purchase decision on their view of the particular technology as much as the product's performance. If you could hide the fact that your SET amp employed 300B tubes, would you?
I sympathize with (and fully understand) the desire to protect your intellectual property (I'd NEVER download music illegally for this reason), but I suspect that D-Sonic will lose sales over this decision.
Of course, I could be wrong. |
The new website ohmspeaker.com is kinda shocking. Moped to rocketship overnight. If John is reading this, the only thing missing is an easy "click thru" to a photo of each model from the data sheet page. Other than that, welcome to the new millennium, Ohm! |
Did someone really say they got Ohms wrapped only in bubble wrap?
My 100s arrived in about 6 layers of boxes that also defeated UPS's best attempts to decapitate them by forklift. I joked with John that he uses that many layers of packaging to discourage anyone who wants to return them - the thought of repacking that box will cause many to think twice.
Shy of my Verity P/Es (shipped in aluminum flight cases) the Ohms were the most securely packed item that I've ever received. |
Coot,
What would you identify as the issue with large scale orchestral works/organ music? Is it a lack of power in the lowest registers of pipe organ? Is it a lack of macro-dynamics on full orchestral swell? Both? Something else entirely?
It's hard to make a considered suggestion without a better understanding of the issue at hand. |
Coot,
I noticed a similar issue with my 100s. I added a pair of subwoofers to address the bottom octave and take some of the upper bass workload off the Ohms. I love the result, but I use Audyssey to integrate the woofers and I know that that's not everyone's cup of tea.
FWIW, I don't think that Ohm's greatest strength is macro-dynamics (tho I haven't heard the larger models so I can't comment on those). Conversely, the MBL 101 is great on that front, but hideously expensive, a bit flabby on bottom, and -to my ear - bottom heavy in medium sized rooms.
I haven't heard any other full range omnis, so there may be other ways to skin the cat. However, if you want to address the issue without replacing your speakers, adding subwoofers to your Ohms might be your best bet. Worked for me. |
To clarify one point re: adding subs. I actively cross my set up at 72hz - that number reflecting the smoothest FR I could manage thru the x-over region. I suspect that diverting those large excursion signals below 72hz away from the Ohm allows for a greater sense of macro-dynamics. The really long excursions are now executed by the Rythmik subs which handle the job better. Freed from that work, the Ohm can handle its job better, too. The increased bass extention into the bottom octave is less important to me, since it's so rarely present on any of the music that I listen to. Since Coot's a pipe organ guy, it may be more useful to him - provided he's got one (or more) of those rare recordings that actually provides the bottom end of the pipe to a system that can handle it. |
32-ft pipe = 16Hz. Not that uncommon in large organs.
No argument, Coot,
I was merely pointing out that, of the half dozen or so pipe organ recordings that I own, only one - an SACD I purchased at the Cathedral in Passau, Germany (home of the largest pipe organ in Europe at that time) - actually has meaningful signal below 35hz.
One of my hobbies over the last several years has been measuring in-room response with my RTA and StudioQ software. Just to see how low my recordings go, I measured the pipe organ recordings (Sudio Q can be set to show lowest frequency/highest frequency, etc). On sweeps, my system will hit 25hz with no roll-off at 80db. The SACD referenced above is the only music recording that I've tested that dips below 30hz, tho it did get down into the 20ish hz region IIRC.
Lots of soundtracks go very low, and there's no question that a pipe organ can go that low, but there's a major question in my mind how many pipe organ recordings go that low. |
The least expensive way to assure flat 20hz response that I know of would be a Velodyne SMS-1 bass management system (+/- $500 new, if available) coupled with the appropriate subs of your choice ($1k for a pair of SVS 12" sealed subs would probably do the trick. The SMS-1 is kind of a PITA, but it allows parametric EQ down to 15hz (IIRC) with a basic RTA function that allows the user to (maddeningly slowly) adjust FR for flat response down to that frequency. It has an auto EQ function, but IME it's nearly useless. I'd also note that the high cut function is quite limited in flexibility, but I always managed to successfully work with it when I had the SMS-1 in my system.
It ain't perfect, but with the right subs, manual EQ with an SMS-1 will get you flat to <20hz. |
Just a different take on the Hibachi vs class D question.
I personally prefer the 100s with the Hibachis vs my Bel Canto s-300 class D integrated for precisely the same reasons Map prefers his Bel Canto. Run full-range, I like the warmer sounding Hibachis to the tighter Bel Canto. There's certainly a different model class D amp in play here, but I think this one comes down to room/system/personal taste.
Just one more data point. |
Jock,
I've found (and measured) the Ohms (I use S100s) to be very neutral. That's sometimes evident in the lower midrange/upper bass where some high-end designs are goosed a bit to sound richer or in the upper mids where extra energy gives some speakers more"jump". IMO, neither of those approaches is a cardinal sin if the speakers' overall balance is appropriate and the deviation isn't too extreme. Notwithstanding that wiggle room, the Ohms just don't meaningfully go there.
Further, the top end of my 100s rolls off less quickly than some competing designs. The 100s also lack full range bass extension (as do most speakers at that price point). The overall impression may be "thin" sounding to some, but I'd call it pretty close to dead neutral.
I don't know your Kefs, so I can't speculate as to the issue you've ID'd. I can only note that the Ohms are quite neutral in my room.
As to Mapman's comments, Ohms are relatively rare speakers of unusual design. Mapman probably has more experience with Ohm designs than the rest of the board members combined. In this corner, his comments are always appreciated. |
Not all omnis are created equal, but "better" and "worse" is always going to be in the ear of the beholder.
Omnidirectional response can be achieved in several different ways, each of which has its own particular "flavor", heard varyingly as pluses and/or minuses by each listener. The multi-material, full-range Walsh design (one variety of which is still being manufactured by Dick Harter) has limited max output. The MBL can safely deliver crushing SPLs. Score one for MBL (if you listen loud). However, the bass response of the MBL isn't as tight and defined as the Walsh. Score this one the other way (unless you prefer the bass "bloom" of the MBL). This stuff is always a matter of trade-offs plus personal sate.
The Ohms aren't omnis above 7khz, IIRC, so that's a cheat - if you care about "design purity".. Bose gets very wide treble dispersion in some models by angling tweeters back against the wall. The Duevel, Robertson (sic?) and Mirage models use a similar idea (fire the tweeter upwards against a deflector) to get 360 degree treble. Gallo uses a tweeter with native 180 degree dispersion in the treble, but that only kicks in above 2khz, where dispersion at the top of the mid/woofer's pass and has already narrowed.
Which design is overall "best" and why? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that if you played em all for ten different 'Goners, you'd get ten different answers. |
Accurus,
Very cool project you've embarked upon. Thanks for the opportunity to follow along here. |
I can't comment on the older models, but my Ohm 100s absolutely go towards the leaner, more articulate side through the bass region. If anything, I'd call the bass ever-so-slightly over damped. It's possible that a more recent model may better serve the OP's preferences. |
