accurus, nice write up! I'm also a former owner of Maggies and Ohms. My first serious speaker purchase was a set of Ohm Fs back in 1976 and I still have never heard a speaker that was quite as magical as they were. They certainly had their limitations, but the drawbacks pretty much fell in areas that didn't bother me.
I auditioned the Ohm 2000s several years back and almost bought them, though the Maggie 1.7s won out. They were just a better match for my room at that time. In any event, while the Ohms were very good and I could have easily lived with them, they just didn't have that magical sense of space the original Fs presented.
I'll second your comments that the finish quality of the Ohm cabinets is quite mediocre. They are at a price point that I would expect better, though that certainly doesn't affect the sound.
I also agree with your comments about bass -- the speakers are very impressive in this area. I found no need for a subwoofer for the purposes of playing music.
However, the main reason I no longer own either Maggies or Ohms is that after we moved some years back, my current listening room isn't well suited for speakers that put out a lot of energy to the rear. The back wall is asymmetrical -- solid on the left but with an opening on the right that cannot be closed. This plays havoc with the sound from such speakers. Front firing speakers pretty much solve this problem since the left & right side walls are symmetrical.
Once again, it proves that the choice of speakers not only need to match the listener's preferences, but also the room's. |
Just thought I'd start up this thread again to state that I have a set of 1000s coming in a few weeks. I had a pair of the original Ohm Fs back in the 1970s and loved them - they threw an absolutely magical 3D image. I have always regretted selling them when I moved in 1977.
Been through a lot of speakers since. Tried a set of Ohm 200s back in 2003 to replace the aging set of tri-amped trasmission line KEFs I used for a number of years but liked the Maggie 1.6QRs better in the room at that time. When we moved in 2006, the Maggies didn't work in the 13 X 14 room in the new house. I ended up with a pair of Spendor SP1/2Es which I really loved, but the wife didn't like the 70s boxes. So I then switched to the current set of GE Triton 7s. They are very good, but talk about a tight and small sweet spot!
I've got a difficult room as there is an opening behind the right speaker that has no door. I assumed omni type speakers were a lost cause due to the lack of symmetry. After recently talking to John at Ohm, he said the wall IN BETWEEN the two speakers is what's important. If that's the case, I may be OK.
So, here in a few weeks we're going to find out. I'm crossing my fingers that they'll do the trick and have the magic I remember (and, release me from the microscopic sweet spot.)
|
Thanks @bondmanp. I'm probably still 3 weeks or so away from getting them, but plan on giving them every opportunity to become a permanent addition to my system.
As noted before, I had a trial run with the 200s back in 2003 or so and they fell just a bit short of what I was after. Trust that a bit more tweaking has been done since then.
I certainly plan on giving a full report when I've had a chance to live with them for awhile.
|
OK, the Ohm 1000s arrived Wednesday and so far I've got about 4 hours of listening from them. The 3-D image is wonderful out of the box, but still have some experimenting to do with respect to positioning. Plus, they need some break-in time. Way premature to give much in the way of a review, but we are off to a good start!
More to follow.
|
I've now spent about 12 hours listening to my new Ohm 1000s and experimenting with their placement in my room. This is not a dedicated listening room so there are limitations as to what can go where.
Right out of the box, the 3-D imaging was amazing. Even more so, it is extremely impressive is to be freed from the very small sweet spot that most other speakers have. For a long time I told myself that when I'm listening seriously, I'll be in that one spot that gives the best image. If I'm anywhere else, then I'm listening casually and imaging isn't that critcal.
I think I've been cheating myself with that view. The Ohms have removed the shackels. It is simply marvelous to be able to move about the room or sit elsewhere and have the music continue to image like a live ensemble, without the 3-D qualities disappearing or changing unnaturally.
The one thing that had kept me from trying Ohms in the past few years turned out to be a non-issue. There is a door opening (with no door to close) behind and to the side of the right speaker. I had thought that would screw things up badly for a quasi-omni speaker. However, after talking to John at Ohm, he said that shouldn't be an issue -- it's the wall between the speakers that counts. Turned out he was right on and the doorway does not seem to adversely affect the sound.
The other strong point is that acoustic instruments, and vocals in particular, are extemely well voiced. They are natural and accuate sounding and the tonal balance is outstanding. This, in combination with the gigantic sweet spot, makes the sonic image float eerily independent of the speakers -- very nice.
Interestingly, the speakers were a bit bass-shy out of the box. This is not something one expects from Ohms. However, in experimenting with the placement and running a few 20 Hz to 200 Hz frequency sweeps, I found the right spot that got rid of the mid-bass dip. It was just a matter of moving them about 2 or 3 inches closer to the wall behind them. Bass is now impressively solid and deep.
The only shortcoming is very material dependent. Some recordings have their vocals too closely miked (or used a rather "spitty" sounding mike), so there can be some brittleness on vocals in those recordings. That happens less than 10% of the time on the material I've played so far. Plus, between the break-in and experimenting with positions, this problem has subsided substantially over the past few days. I've still got some more work to do that may help this, but I do need to remember that I can't expect a speaker to fix the poor aspects of a recording.
Despite having a 120 day trial, I've already decided these are keepers. I have very eclectic taste in music -- classical, jazz, folk, pop, rock, and various other oddities. (Just picked up a CD of civil war songs along side some Ginastera and Pink Matini....) While I don't listen loudly -- 85 dB is about the maximum for average volume -- so far the Ohms are handling it all with ease. As you can tell, I'm pleased.
|
I thought about starting a new thread, but it just seemed right to continue the discussion here.
I'm digging through my collection (almost 60,000 tracks) and throwing as much variety as I can at the speakers. You're right, it is fun stuff to check out a new set of speakers!
|
I'm enjoying my Ohm 1000s as I type this -- Murray Perahia is playing Beethoven's Piano Concerto No 1 and the sound is expansive. Ohm's do a wonderful job of capturing the scale of an orchestra in a concert hall.
My room is roughly 13 X 14 and the speakers are 7' apart from each other on the shorter wall, 10" out. (They started out 8' apart and 14" from the wall, but small changes make a dramatic difference. Experimentation is important.)
I had originally discounted the Ohms, because as a semi-omni speaker, I thought the wall opening at the right behind the speakers would play havoc with the sound. John Strohbeen at Ohm and I discussed this and it turned out he was quite right. I'd suggest you discuss your issue with him and see what he thinks. You may be surprised, as I was.
|
Here's an update on the Ohm 1000s. I've had them for over a month now and have them settled in the right spot and continue to really enjoy them.
The stridency issue originally mentioned turned out to be the rear panel of the flat screen TV that is in between the two speakers. Apparently, the extra acoustic energy from the Ohm's quasi-omni radiation excited the TV panel in a way the GE Triton 7s didn't.
The problem was solved by ordering Siless sound proofing panels from Amazon. These are relatively thin but dense material with an adhesive back that are used for sound deadening in cars. It is very easy to cut to any shape desired. For about $20 you get two 15" X 24" sheets, so it is not very expensive. (I've only used about 10% of the material on the TV so far.)
I cut some Siless panels and stuck them to the back of the TV, being careful to not cover any ventilation holes. Even though I only added deadening to about 20% of the back of the TV, it substantially reduced the rattle of the back panel and the strident sibilance is almost completely gone.
That's one thing about the Ohms -- they do interact with the room on a substantially different level than conventional front radiator speakers, so be prepared to approach things in a different way.
And, as I believe I noted before, these speakers are staying put. Zero need to take Ohm up on their 120 day return offer.
|
@ bondmanp -- The TV sits on a wood TV cabinet. While the cabinet itself is against the rear wall, the back of the TV is about 6" or 7" from the wall. (The internet router is located behind the TV.) BTW, the Siless panels are only about 1/16" thick when on a surface. I suspect they could still be used on a wall-mounted TV. And, within the realm of "audiophile" accessories, the $20 I spent for the Siless panels makes the a downright steal |
vidiot33 -- you've summed things up nicely, but I'll add a comment about fit & finish. The 1000s I bought a year ago are quite nicely done. Nothing fancy, but a good finish. I had demoed a set of 200s something over a decade ago (and didn't keep them at) and they were indeed somewhat subpar in the veneer's surface finish quality. The 1000s I now have are heads and tails above the 200s in this regard. No complaints on my part (or my wife's) as they look great in our room.
|
