I'd love to hear the impressions of people who've actually spent some time with these speakers to share their sense of their plusses and minuses. Mapman here on Audiogon is a big fan, and has shared lots on them, but I'm wondering who else might be familiar with them.
BC did a nice job putting a unique twist to the design of this speaker to help make their product standout!
Should help OHM get more exposure in teh high end audio world as well, though I'm not sure how much JS really cares about that. He probably knows most of his sales will come from the much larger portion of the music listening population that are closer to the mainstream.
OHM Micro Talls...is the little speaker that could....The micro OHM had a "perspective" of the front or second row of a concert hall while the other OHMs seem to place the listener too far back for me. Hifidon (Answers
Interesting MWTs (which I have not heard) were more forward. No Walshes I have heard are. Mapman (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)
The reviewer of the Blue Circle BM2 writes "...the BM2s woofers and tweeter are used in pretty typical fashion.
I am going to agree with Hifidon who further states ""where you like to sit at a music event or movie theater" is relevant to a choice of a reproducing loudspeaker."
So, keeping in mind different speakers, rooms, equipment, different everything, which is more likely to be the more common experience for someone owning Ohms vs the BC BM2: Sound that is a little removed from us, less physically immediate, putting us back a few rows in the concert hall, or sound that is more closer, where we are aware of the instruments presence?
My sense is, after reading the comments and Doug Schneider's review, it is generally the former, but until Hifidon brought the matter up, no one much mentioned it (concert hall perspective). So, those who have considerable experience with Ohms and live musical experiences, I'd like to get your take. When you go to concerts, where do you like to sit?
For the first time in my life, I am going to attend a number of indoor concerts, musicals, etc. in a relatively short period of time, and I am purposely selecting different seats in the hall to gain a better perspective on live music from different seating positions. I expect to be buying new speakers later in the year.
I like to generally sit in the "sweet spot", dead center and a bit further back than the performance width.
I listen with my larger OHMs in a similar configuration but I listen to the 100s in the smaller room more nearfield like being front row just left of center.
Sometimes with the larger OHMs in the larger room, I sit near field also, just 1.5 feet in front of and a tad outside of the left speaker (they are about 6 feet apart) and the soundstage shifts yet remains detailed and coherent.
One nice thing about good omnis is you can sit if different locations and get different presentations without moving the speakers, which can make for a nice and easy change of pace.
Thanks, Mapman. That helps a lot seeing that you are the primary contributor to this thread with extensive experience (pinging Martykl). I take it that where you sit at a concert mirrors, more or less, where you like to sit at home? How's it going with your new amps?
One nice thing about good omnis is you can sit if different locations and get different presentations without moving the speakers, which can make for a nice and easy change of pace.
Too bad the same thing can't be said about concert halls.
BTW, it looks as if Rebbi, the OP, is still on his speaker hunt. I see he is now looking at the new Merlin monitors. I wish him luck on his speaker quest.
Thanks. Really, I just like to blather on and on about OHMs more than anyone else i suppose. I do try to be consistent!
Yes, at a live concert I tend to go for the sweet spot if possible. Most other locations in most venues deliver more compromise.
Regarding shifting soundstage at live events, it can happen in some venues with un amplified acoustic instruments and vocals, but there is usually mikes, amps and speakers involved to some extent, which works against that. When it works, its mostly a result of venue acoustics and the geometry involved with how the sound reaches your ears. When the geometry supports the ears ability to triangulate to determine location of instruments, it can happen. It is probably true though that in general it is less common and pronounced in experience than listening to a good pair of OHMs or mbls even with a recording miked in an appropriate manner to capture the relative location of instruments to a good degree.
The new amps are a home run. OHMs really benefit from the power, current and damping factor to a great degree I believe, as do many dynamic speaker designs. The Dynaudios also sound better than ever, the timbre of the BCs on these is less towards the hot side now. The OHM Ls sound way better than I have ever heard them, and even the little Relaistic Minimus 7s on my deck are happy as can be.
I am of the opinion that the vast majority of OHM owners out there have never heard their speakers optimally driven to the max and are missing out. That's because a lot of OHMs have been sold over the years starting at relatively low price points (under $500) as part of nice sounding but underpowered systems running off less ballsy amplification typical in receivers and even many integrated's. That works fine for most, but those who care might wean a lot more out of their OHMs by looking at bigger yet still greener Class D amps.
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.
I find the seating location critical to good sound in live performances.
My favorite listening position is in rows L,M & N, dead center at Carnegie Hall. Having attended hundreds of performances in this hall and in many, many locations from front row to "up with the angels", I find this the most balanced for full symphonic performances.
I try to make the Ohms sound like listening from my favorite listening position.
I have never heard a performances that used microphone and speakers that would match these pure acoustical events.
We do our yearly trip to NY every June. Its coming up again. We stay at the Parker Meridian, down the block from Carnegie. Last year I got to hear a performance at Carnegie listening just right of center in Dress Circle level. I had heard that you voice the OHMs based on listening at Carnegie and as I was sitting there listening, I felt right at home. The sound there was indeed quite exceptional and holographic even at times.
The Old Carnegie Hall was acoustically superior to the new refurbished hall of today, though the latter is still an excellent acoustic. The old hall had scintillating air and a responsiveness that was magical.
I've been listening to my Ohm Walsh 5000s driven by the superb Wyred 4 Sound ST1000 amp for several months now and taking full measure of these loudspeakers. They are magical! Vis a vis the Walsh 5 Series III the 5000s are very much the same animal. But, the 5000s are better in many ways: more refined presentation, more nuanced, with remarkable transparency and delicacy. Yet, the 5000s go substantially lower and have extraordinary dynamics - they can play orchestral ensembles with breathtaking power and control. The background is so black and quiet. The bass is incredibly fast and tuneful - the cabinet tuning is so spot on perfect that I get goose bumps hearing low bass quitar sixteenth notes tripping so nimble and clean and perfectly articulated that I never cease to marvel at it. I'm hearing a lot more in familar recordings, much more presence and all the interstices and low level happening that I never heard before. The vocals are just perfect - so lifelike and natural, vivid and startling. I have been postponing writing a detailed review of the 5000s because of time restraints and also, inability to conjure up the words to describe these loudspeakers. They are truly exquisite and special - best money I ever spent. Ohm and John S. have built something very special here, light years superior to the classic Walsh 5, and fundamentally superior to the Series 3 drivers in a ways I have difficulty putting in words. By way of metaphor, imagine comparing a drawing by a very skilled artist to one deftly and exquisitely rendered with remarkable suppleness and shading by a da Vinci: the former is quite good; but the latter is exquisite, eye-grabbing and a one-of-a-kind masterpiece bespeaking the unique talents and years of experience and mastery of the creator. The Walsh 5000s are loudspeakers built by a da Vinci - you can hear the quality and excellence of sound that could only be the work of a master builder seasoned by years of refinement of his techniques. Such a work is priceless to one who can appreciate it's beauty and special qualities.
If John Strohbeen ever comes up with a newer Walsh 5000, maybe called the Walsh 5000-deluxe, I might buy it just to see if John can do what I think may be impossible: improving on the sound of the 5000s. Yes, I know that no device is 'perfect.' But, the 5000s are that good that I wonder if they are not now the absolute apex of sound reproduction achievable with Ohm's ingenious and elegant CLS architecture. We shall see.
Wow, mamboni, I've been waiting for some insightful assessments of the 5000s. Knowing your background in music, your accolades carry a lot of weight for me!
Now you're giving me the upgrade bug I thought I had dispersed finally once more.....
Yes, I was hoping you'd chime in on our own venue preferences. I'd forgotten about Mamboni's own experience, and being a musician at that, I should have pinged him too : )
That was a terrific mini-review of the Series 5000. Given John's description of what his goal is in voicing his speakers, I am more curious than ever, after attending some concerts, if my preference is more for the forward, dramatic sense of presence, or if I will be more drawn to the mid-hall perspective, enveloping, and grander picture of things.
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.
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.
I can understand why many put "accuracy" as the most important attribute for a speaker. As for me, I have heard speakers that measure very, very good that I did not care for at all, and other speakers that measured less so, in some cases, much less so, that I found more appealing.
It is one reason why some earlier assertions about the Ohms not being very accurate don't concern me too much. Once I have a chance to hear them in my own home with my own gear, I'll know if I will still be on the merry-go-round or not for my main room. I'd like, funds permitting, to be able to listen to different speakers for the rest of my life, though, in my secondary room.
Update - As I posted previously, I ordered a pair of custom made, spiked cradle bases from Sound Anchors for my Walsh 2000s. Although John Strohbeen told me that this was not necessary for the Walsh speakers, my uneven floor prevented me from getting the speakers level and level with each other, and they rocked a bit too much (not rocked as in Rock & Roll, but as in back and forth). The stands were $300 plus shipping. Pictures can be seen on the Sound Anchors web site. They are solid, well made and heavy, with 3-point, adjustable spikes that screw into the base.
After I levelled the speakers on the bases, I noticed that the sound was cleaned up a bit, with a little more fine detail. The soundstage also seems a little larger than before, especially in the lateral plane.
As a side note, I think I need a different listening chair. The high-back leather reclining chairs and ottomans I bought when I set up my basement HT in 1994 are less than ideal for music listening. I discovered this when I leaned forward in the chair. The sound was significantly better in terms of details, soundstage and even smoothness in the highs. So, along with seeking improvements in acoustic treatments, cables, ICs and powercords, I will now be on the hunt for an *affordable* comfortable low-backed listing chair or two.
First, I admit I haven't read every single page in this thread, but I have read most of them, and I think what I am hearing is that the OHMs might be just the speaker I am looking for - I have a large room (24 x 36 x 12) with carpeted floors and a central seating area that I am looking to put a dedicated music system in. While I have heard speakers I like, I have been frustrated by the very tight sweet spot - this is my living room and I want to be able to share music with my wife and friends without playing musical chairs. The speakers that have jumped to my attention for this task have been the Shahinian and Ohm speakers and I was wondering if anyone had listened to both? I would very much like to know how they compare to one another. Are there any other contenders that I should be considering for the task?
D110 - Most of your assumptions are correct. I don't need the "wide sweet spot" feature of the Ohms (details on the Ohm web site), but it's still nice to have. The Shahinian is a fascinating speaker design with many loyal fans. I briefly looked into them. Unlike Ohm, there is no home-trial available. Shahinian's suggestion was for me to drive to Long Island from my New Jersey home to audition them. Having lived for years with a speaker that never sounded as good in my home as it did in the showroom, this was just a no-go for me. I insisted on a home trial for any potential speaker purchase. There is just no substitute for hearing a speaker in your room, with your gear, with your music. Of course, you can start buying and selling used speakers to try them out, with little financial risk, but the time and back-strain that goes with this meathod make it unappealing to me.
Ohm's 120-day home trial (you risk only the round-trip shipping) was ideal. And, as I have mentioned in this thread before, I really like Ohm's approach of making one "sound" for the whole Walsh line, and then scaling it for different room volumes, which are posted on the web site. I bought the 2000s, which are appropriate for my room, and I am very pleased. My complete review is posted in the speaker review section.
I recenyly upgraded to the new Walsh 1000's,and it cost me $96.00 to ship the micro walshes back to Ohm. Just thought I'd give you an idea of cost if you choose to ship speakers back to them. I'm still in the process of breaking in my 1000's, and will be posting a user review sometime in July, when my 120 day trial is up. As of right now, the 1000's have the signature Ohm sound, and ther major difference is that they go a lot lower (low 30's) and this is quite noticeable on some recordings. I hesitate to comment any further because the speakers have just started to open up a bit more (I got them on April 6th) and I know they have a ways to go before they're fully broken in, but so far, so good Joe
D110 wrote: The speakers that have jumped to my attention for this task have been the Shahinian and Ohm speakers and I was wondering if anyone had listened to both?
Yes, I have. The Shahinians I auditioned were older Obelisks (for a short time) and Hawks, which are my current speakers. The Ohms were a pair of Walsh 200's (mid 90's model). The Ohms and the Hawks were driven by either one or two Plinius SA100/MkIII amps (Ohms cannot be biamped).
I listen to and carer about mostly orchestral classical music so my comments reflect that.
The Shahinians, both Obelisks and Hawks, produce an enormous sound stage and image, with sometimes remarkably rich and lively violin sound, woodwinds (esp. clarinets and flutes) of great beauty and fidelity to the real thing (or some real thing). In addition, they both have explosive, very dynamic bass with a definite presence in the upper bass/lower midrange that provides a fair sense of the power in that region an orchestra produces. Low brass and strings, bassoons, tympani, harp--all of these have a solidity and body rarely captured in reproduction. Shahinian's design goals include the achieving of this kind of physicality.
The Walsh does not share the Shahinian's bass power, rich tonal balance, or (most sadly for me) timbral accuracy. Winds, brass, and strings all sound tonally less rich than reality. But the Walsh 200's have a more detailed and tighter bass, a "cleaner" sound, produce a soundstage and image easily as impressive as the Hawks with better specificity of location (a characteristic not heard live). I listened to one jazz record, Cassandra Wilson's New Moon Daughter) which features extreme presence, beautifully defined bass, a gorgeous fullness and complexity in the voice, and, as a bonus, some darn good tunes. The Ohms outdid the Hawks in bass definition and presence but the voice was richer with the Hawks. Almost like cd vs. lp or SS vs. tube, the Shahinians are warmer and more lush, the Ohms are crisper and leaner. The Shahinians can deliver a physical punch that the Ohms cannot approach. I do not know if the new Walsh drivers change any of these things, not having heard them. If they were a little more uncolored and a tad richer sounding, I'd happily live with them-- but I'd keep the Shahinians, too. My bottom line is "beauty of sound" and the Hawks are hard to beat there.
My impression is that all the Shahinian designs share the characteristics I have pointed to, to greater or lesser degree. The Walsh drivers, it is said, are all the same except for size so, presumably, the same is true for their line.
By the way, the Hawks will play rather louder and handle lots more power than the Ohms.
That's OK, but probably not enough to bring out the best in any OHM Walshes, particularly in regards to bass impact based on my experience with them.
I would think that would go pretty loud still though large scale classical music like you describe in particular may not be up to snuff.
I can say with confidence that the more recent OHMs with a high power, high current SS amp behind them matches the best systems I have heard in this regard. Recent Class D amp breakthroughs raise the bar in terms of amp size and power consumption needed to drive them to the max for music that requires a lot of power behind it to deliver.
Always have heard good things about Shahinian but unfortunately have never heard those. thanks for sharing!
One thing I notice about Shahinian versus OHM is Shahinian has a forward firing woofer I believe. The OHM Walsh driver fires downward. A forward firing driver might impart more low end impact that can be felt to a listener sitting in front than a downward firing in that more sound reaches the listener directly, all other factors aside.
This difference in the presenation of OHm Walsh speakers is something that people should be aware of and I believes help drive the need for higher power amps. Those who are used to speaker or subwoofer drivers firing directly at them might be put off by a seeming lack of impact by the Walsh drivers in comparison. A smaller percentage of the sound produced reaches your ears directly with the OHMS or even other mostly omni designs, like mbl. Once you feed these enough power to really energize the entire room (not just your listening position), things start to really shape up.
I don't think Reb will know for sure until he has evaluated the MErlin monitors.
From what I know, I think those are a good choice for assessing what is possible with monitors and the Merlins are probably a good choice for what appears to be a pretty lively room in Rebbi's case.
I tried to end my hunt with the Dynaudio monitors, and they came close, but no cigar in the end. I still like them enough to keep them though. They work as good as anything as a matter of fact in our small sunroom, which also happens to be the most lively room in our house.
I'd be curious to check out Shahinians, particularly the Compass. I'm in the area and I've been in touch with Vasken, so maybe sometime I'l get an audition. If I do, I'll report back...
I have a feeling I'd like the Compass, the only problem is they're larger than the MicroWalsh, and a lot more expensive (I think 4 or 5 times the price).
Just so you'll know, the Shahinian Hawks and Obelisks and Arcs all have a forward firing 8" woofer transmisiion line loaded terminated with a 10" rear firing weighted passive radiator. I believe their bass power is a function of the loading with the passive.
Plinius SA100MkIII clips at 130W/channel, both channels driven.
Mapman has some interesting observations about the nature of bass from Ohms vs. conventional dynamic speakers. It bears repeating that, if you can achieve linear response and a seemless blend, a good subwoofer or two with the Ohm Walsh speakers makes for an appealing presentation, as far as I am concerned.
I have been aware of the excellent reputation of Shahinian speakers for years. The description Rpfef provided has great appeal to me. However, making what is for me a large financial commitment, sight unseen (and unheard), with no recourse other than selling them used if I don't like them, in my room, with my gear, was out of the question.
I fail to understand why Shahinian, which is more similar as a business to Ohm than dissimilar, can't offer an in-home trial period. Assuming Shahinian offered a model comparable in price to the Walsh 2000s, I would have loved to have both in my home for comparison, may the best speaker win. Well, in any event, I continue to enjoy my Ohms!
Everyone quite rightly complains about the difficulty of arranging an audition of speakers not sold through dealers.
Well, here's a proposition:
I own Shahinian Hawks. In the next few days, I will be setting up a pair of Ohm Walsh 200's alongside them. I live on the coast an easy drive north of San Francisco in Marin County. Anyone reading this who is interested is welcome to come to my place for a comparison/audition.
For you people who like holography, nothing better than to use the LEGENDARY BOB CARVER AMPS such as sunfire or carver preamps/amps WITH DAKIOM feedback stabilizers. All my ohm's eminent tech, magnepans are all run by these combinations. Since I am a processor fanatic,I like to tweak using dbx, peavey, bbe to add to the juice. I don't know why ohm did not stick to the old pyramid designs, just because many of their craftsman/cabinet makers retired. I hate the new cabinet designs, but would like to have the new drivers. I can't believe i owned bose 901, 601's in the 80's only to wake up to reality and listen to REAL music coming from a TRUE loudspeaker, OHM WALSH series. I LOVE MY OHMS as well as my maggies.
"I don't know why ohm did not stick to the old pyramid designs,"
Cost control pretty much I think.
The good news is there are lots of these cabinets around that can be fitted with the latest and greatest drivers.
I really like having the casters on the bigger F5s. They make fine tuning location and moving the speaks in general a snap. It's not hard probably to remove the feet from many of the pyramidal cabinets and replace those with castors from OHM or even the local Home Depot perhaps.
Parasound: I have zero experience with Ohm subs, but two things make me optimistic about them. 1 - You get a 120 day return option, risking only shipping. 2 - John Strohbeen knows how to design and voice loudpspeakers. Why not try one out and post your impressions?
Well, I've had my Ohm Walsh Center speaker ($700 + shipping) for a week now, so I'd thought I'd comment. This is the smaller version of the center, roughly 20" wide and 6" deep. The cabinet is only about 2 or 3 inches high, with the Ohm Walsh driver mounted on top in the center. This is a smaller Walsh driver than in my 2000s, and rises about 6" above the cabinet for a total hieght of about 9". Fit and finish of the black wood-grain is excellent. As per John Strohbeen's recommendation, I have the center tilted down toward the listening seat, since it sits atop my ancient SD RPTV. I sit about 10 feet back from the TV. As per Ohm, the Center is crossed over at 80Hz via my Sherwood-Newcastle P-965 pre-pro. Bass is supplied by a Definitive Technology PF-15 sealed 15" sub with a 185-watt internal amp. The bass and LFE signal are smoothed out using both a Paradigm X-30 sub controller and Behringer 1124P FBDP parametric digital EQ.
This little Walsh Center is an Ohm Walsh speaker through and through. It has the same clarity and definition of my 2000s, with a very smooth presentation of both music and dialog. Several films I have viewed using the Walsh Center were in Dolby Digital 1.0 - i.e., mono. Even though all the sound above 80Hz came from this one small speaker, there was no apparent lack of dynamic impact or any sighns that the Walsh Center was being pushed too hard.
This center is an excellent compliment to my 2000s, and along with the MWTs I found used for surround speakers, soundtracks sound wonderful - realisitic, natural and enveloping. So much so, I am seriously considering removing the Paradigm Atoms that reproduce the back-surround channels. Another solid product from Ohm.
I used ohm 300 mk 2 for fronts, pro 200 for center,2xo for rears and also have a 4x0. I use a SVS sub which is cylindrical, what more can you ask for non conventional setup? all being driven by carver/sunfire. Oppo is my blu ray player and lots of dakiom stabilizers. Still haven't decided on hd projector upgrade. I have too many loudspeakers, still have acoustat spectra electrostats, eminent tech, maggies and NO BOSE. Can't really go wrong any of these designs!
Just an FYI sent to me by Ohm (heads-up on the subwoofer deal, Parasound) -
"Ohm will be closed from June 26 to July 12 for our Summer Holiday. These all have Ohm's 120-Day Home Trial and a 3-Year Limited Warranty. Shipping is only $50 per pair in the lower 48 states.
Walsh 5 Limited Edition NEWLY VENEERED cabinets with new Walsh 5000 drivers....Regularly $7000 Now $5400.
Walsh 300 black cabinets with new Walsh 4000 drivers......................Regularly $5600 Now $3900
Walsh 200 S-3 rosewood cabinets with new Walsh 3000 drivers...................Regularly $4000 Now $2800
Walsh 100 walnut cabinets with new Walsh 2000 drivers.....................Regularly $2800 Now $1900
Walsh 100-S3 cherry cabinets....Regularly $2000 Now $1300
MicroWalsh Tall Signature Edition in rosewood ...............Regularly $1400 Now $1000
SB-12D rosewood subwoofer, dual 12" driver in end-table cabinet.................Regularly $1200 Now $ 850
MicroWalsh Short Omnis in walnut cabinets................Regularly $ 950 Now $ 665
Must ORDER by June 25, 2010.
Call me to discuss your needs and options.
Good Listening!
John Strohbeen, President, 800-783-1553"
NOTE: I am not affiliated with Ohm Acoustics in any way outside of being a satisfied customer.
The sub is certainly tempting. But I've decided to send my F's to Dale Harder at HHR to be rebuilt instead of putting money into another sub (or anything else, for that metter)
My current home-theater configuration is as follows.
LCR: 3x100 S3 behind an acoustically transparent screen.
Side Surrounds: 2 x Super 2 (with the 100-S3 drivers).
Rears: 2 x 100 S3 in a half-sized omni version.
The LCR are behind an acoustically-transparent screen. The LCR and side surrounds are powered by an Emotiva XPA-5 amp, and the rears are powered by an Outlaw 7125 amp.
I am using a Yamaha RX-V765 as a pre-pro.
Everything is crossed at 80Hz to an Epik Conquest subwoofer.
I also have 2xMicro-Walshes in the mini-omni design, which I may use as heights/wides if I go above 7.1 or I may use as part of another system.
"Hmmmm, when I had my 100's, I thought John said that they wouldn't take any of the X000-series drivers due to size incompatibilities...."
Most likely he had not adapted the new drivers to that particular cabinet yet. Over time, he seems to work out how to adapt the newer drivers to as many old cabinets as possible, thereby providing the most potential upgrade paths possible. I do not think he would advertise or sell a new driver on an old cabinet until the combo can be tuned properly. Just plopping a new driver on an old cabinet would not be an optimized solution in that each cabinet's acoustics are different. Eventually, these get published to the web site at which point I suppose they become a formal product upgrade option.
A significant part of OHMs business is providing upgrades to older units, which both helps keep costs to current owners low and helps keep the customer base intact. If teh upgrade is not published on the web site, then its availability would not be assured.
BTW, with the promotion sale price + 40% max discount for trading in two pair of old OHMs (my old Walsh 2s and a pair of C2s I picked up on ebay for about $130 in order to get $700 trade-in value) the F5s ended up costing me $2400 + the cost of the C2s plus the cost of shipping 2 pair of speakers to OHM for the trade-in. Good deal!
I have had the OHM 1000's for a while now I liked them but did not know what was really missing until I put them in an extreme nearfield set up (3 feet away by 3 ft in between). Paired with an Onkyo 8555 amp it sounds like some very nice headphones.
What's the first equation?! it looks familiar... Funny, I've been looking into Wyred4Sound the last couple of days. Good reviews on their amps and the DACs look good too.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
