Thanks for the thoughtful comments and suggestions. I did just acquire a used NAD 512 CD player here on Agon. It's a fairly low end unit but distinctly better detail, tight and fuller bass and less bright than the Yamaha CD hanger I already had in place.
A couple of other recent tweaks and a new accessory have also made a noticeable difference. At a discount home improvement I got two 12" square concrete patio stones that are about 1.5" thick and look like stone. Put one under each speaker on the hardwood floors (there is a thick oriental rug with pad in room but it does not extend to the area where the speakers sit. Bass response is tighter and deeper. The second tweak may be sen as snake oil by some but I swear the sound - especially with vinyl - is a bit more open and has clarified and even slightly deepened bass response over what it was... all from a new turntable mat. I have Technics SL-1400 (kissing cousin of the Sl-1200.) The stock mat is a thick rubber and many seem to feel that rubber mats - or at least this one - don't allow the sound to open up as much. A lot of research on different mat materials... synthetic plastic, metal, felt, cork etc. yield the overall impression that most folks here no difference between mats which I believe.) The one exception was deerskin. Nearly every thread I found that discussed deerskin/leather mats suggests that they have a positive impact on the sound. Only place I could find them for sale was a few UK vendors and prices were high. I bought a compass style circle cutter with cutting wheel for drywall - at a hardware store,) an X-Actoknife, a roll of self adhesive cork at a craft store, and a 1/4" hole punch and a scrap of soft grained leather at a leather supply shop (deerskin was too pricey for an experiment but I will now buy some based on my sing the rubber mat for size I scored two circles of cork, one of leather and carefully cut them out. One cork circle was then cut to remove a 4" circle of material in the center. That piece was the center of the "sandwich, the smoother side of the leather faces up and the third piece of cork on the bottom. Careful pressure and pounding with a soft rubber mallet got the layers adhered and the center 4" area of leather is slightly depressed due to the cutout under it (for the label depression.) Last steps were to punch the center spindle hole and trim the edges even. I played Side A of Steely Dan's Aja on the rubber mat and then on the new leather mat. There IS a difference and the leather mat yields better sound. I was surprised that I could hear it but am convinced that it isn't my imagination. Followed up later tonight with side B of the Sony Legacy 180 gram reissue of Axis Bold as Love and damn!
Last change... I got an $80 Spin-Clan manual record washer and built my own jerry-rigged vacuum system form and old portable vacuum. I can clean about 15 records in one hour and the results are astounding. Thrift store finds and even vinyl from my own remaining old collection (much of which is gone) sounds so much better. Surface noise that I attributed to worn records was just dirt embedded in the grooves. Great investment. |
Clean records->excellent tweak!
WIth their bottom ports, what the Walshes sit on can make a big difference with how they interact with the room and the resulting sound. I need to try something like that in my tile floor 12X12 sunroom where every speaker I try including the Walshes tend to have a bass bump. |
I had stability issues with my uneven floor as well. I had Sound Anchors make me some three-point spike cradle bases for the 2000s, with similar results to what Phaelon got. Note that even concrete has resonance. My preferred audio guru likes absorption for source components and amps, but prefers coupling for loudspeakers - hence the spiked bases.
I added a K-Works Ersamat to my vintage Thorens table with excellent results. Not as exotic or labor-intensive as making a deerskin mat, but easy and effective, IME.
As for LP cleaning, I spent a little more than Phaelon on the KAB EV-1, which likewise does an awesome job on used LPs. Listened last night to a Denny Christianson Big Band LP ("More Pepper"). Not the best big band LP I've ever heard, but the sonics were spectacular, and the bass was equal to anything I've heard from digital!
I am going to hear KEF's The Blade tonight. I'll post my thoughts at some point. |
Once again - I have heard a respected company's Statement Speaker, in this case the KEF Blade, and come away impressed, but not depressed. The Blade is a wonderful speaker, with excellent detail retrieval, image solidity and extension at both extremes. Of course, they sounded like a point source, a design goal that was met. Yet, the soundstage was confined to the area between the speakers. In that regard, I still prefer the Ref 205 & 207 to the Blade.
Bottom line: While the Blade is actually fairly priced at $30K, my beloved Walsh 2000s do not leave me with speaker envy. |
"my beloved Walsh 2000s do not leave me with speaker envy."
I'm in a similar boat. Have heard lots of great systems and speakers. Still content.
Gotta say though that it took a lot of tweaking to my system over the last few years subsequent to the OHM Walsh upgrade with some additional expense associated to get to the point where others reference systems I hear do not leave me wanting. The OHMs are pretty forgiving and many may not care, with most gear, but it really takes a lot of focus and work to get things to that highest possible level. It usually takes a lot of hard work to achieve great things. Nothing unique there! |
Mapman - I agree completely. While I really enjoy listening to my system as it is currently configured, the Ohms respond very well to upgrades. I am currently evaluating a pair of Vandersteen MHP-5 crossovers (I have a pair of Vandy subs) that replaced Vandersteen's basic crossovers. So far, the Ohms let me hear the improvements in the crossovers: Smoother mids and treble, better low-level detail, more stable imaging, and more bass (to the point that I will probably dial back the subs).
I am also planning several IC and power cord upgrades. As always, I will post my impressions here. |
I've found significant differences with different ICs with the OHMS, more so than any other speaker I have owned.
HAven't crossed the bridge of dabbling with power cords yet. HAve not felt the need. I hesitate to change anything at present. Everything has been dialed in for the OHM F5s for about a year now. Maybe sometime soon. |
Once again I upgraded my system (Is there any escape from this madness?). You can check out the amp review in the Products Review:Amps:McCormack DNA-250 |
Musical and muscular! I like that description!
I'd love to see some nice photos of those bubinga 5000s. |
I'm giving thought to keeping the Ohm 2's and moving them to the bedroom for a second system... with a larger pair of Ohms for the first floor/LR system. Spotted a used pair of Ohm I for sale (not Ohm 1's.) These are conventional speakers in the sens that they have five forward firing drivers but unconventional in that they have an additional three upward facing drivers on top of each speaker. If I drop the hammer on these it is a sale at a distance - no chance to audition them. have any of you heard these and can share thoughts on how different or similar the sound is to the Ohm 2 design and its ilk? |
Never heard Is but have almost picked up a pair on several occasions. They are reputed to be quite awsome. They were an interim top of the line design prior to the Walsh cls driver but do not utilize any Walsh driver techlology. |
Good to see the old thread active.
Just to chime in: while I'm sure the Ohm's are responsive to all sorts of improvements, one of the factors that keeps me from even auditioning other speakers is how wonderful they are with a quality amp and good placement.
Still the largest and most realistic soundstage I have heard for under about 50K, and my system is nowhere near audiophile quality... |
Parasound - Funny you should say you don't even audition speakers anymore. Since I joined my local audio club a few years ago, I have been able to audition dozens of speakers, plus electronics of all sorts. As my earlier posts explain, I love doing this. While before I had the Ohms, these auditions would always send me home completely unexcited by my own rig, now I actually look forward to coming home and firing up the Ohms. I have heard speakers that cost 10 times as much, and more, than my 2000s that I would not trade for. It's really amazing. In fact, the few times I have felt that someone's system was superior was not with mega-buck speakers, but with good mid-priced speakers, like an older Martin Logan model. And yet, I think that front-end, cable and acoustic improvements will get me there, all without a speaker upgrade. I haven't ventured into that "speakers to hold onto for life" thread, but more and more, I am realizing that these might well be my last loudspeakers (barring a lottery hit).
Mapman - I have been dipping my toe into the power cord waters. An entry level PS Audio cord seems to do no harm to my amp, and is perhaps just slightly quieter. A more expensive pc from K-Works, for my preamp, did indeed lower the noise floor and increase apparent soundstage width. Since I will soon need a longer pc for the amp, I expect I will try something else, perhaps Audio Art. Once I get that done, I will finally upgrade my speaker cables, which are older Kimber entry level. I'll keep you posted. |
Even with a lottery hit, there just aren't that many speakers I'd be interested in. I'm sold on the omni concept- so I guess MBL's or German Physiks would be a possibility. But I'd probably just go with a larger, recent incarnation of the Ohm's.
It's been almost 3 years that I've had the MWT's, and I still remember the thrill of doing the research, reading this thread and talking to John.
Even with my 'pedestrian' Marantz receiver, Emotiva sub and lap-top based music/movie server system, the soundstage, imaging and tonal accuracy is amazing to me.
I've moved on to obsessing on my pro-audio caliber bass rig, which is why I don't even frequent this board too often. I just feel no need to upgrade, which has never happened to me before now. If anything, some Micro Walsh Walls may be in the future to have a surround set-up. But not anytime soon... |
Mapman I have photos but I can't seem to figure out how to put these in a response- it only accepts words, not jpeg. |
Carja,
The only way I know is to post a virtual system. |
Posted my virtual system with photos for anyone interested under "Opinions Please" |
Since you ask :-)
First, that is a really nice looking set of speakers!
Second, I suspect that you would greatly improve your sound stage IF you could shift all of the stuff, especially the speakers, 2 to3 feet further into the room and hang some heavy cloth panels on the windows. You could keep the shears and drapes on separate rods keeping the drapes open framing the windows except for those times you are listening critically. But I realize we all have problems and ideal set ups are not always possible. :-) |
Nice and cozy.
Perhaps considering listing your speakers too as part of your set-up. There will be those who aren't following this thread but who will happen upon your virtual system.
I am a little surprised the 5000s don't overpower the room. How did you arrive at selecting the 5000s? |
Thanks Newbee and Mapman, last night I moved the speakers in a bit and the speakers disappeared; I was surrounded by music! Finsup the room size is a bit misleading from my photo. There is the dining room behind where I sit that is one foot above the listening area and extends about 20 feet behind where I sit. Similarly, off to the left, the room opens up into a large entrance way. The ceilings are about 11-12 feet high. So when I crank up the volume I can enjoy the music while dining or I can hear when I'm off to the wetbar on the left of the room. If the room were enclosed, I would have gone with the smaller speakers like the 3000 or 2000. |
These are 5000's right?
IF so, then you have the on-board adjustments to match to room size and acoustics so room size should not be a problem.
IF put my 5s with similar adjustments in my smaller 12X12 room just to see/hear how well they worked there compared to my 100S3s, and was able to adjust the 5s to sound very much like the 100s, although the physical cabinet size of the 5s took up too much floor space in such a small room in comparison to the Walsh 2 cabinets where the 100S3 drivers reside.
5000s are taller and narrower than 5s I believe so issues fitting into the room are more likely height of driver related in that in general the Walsh CLS speakers tend to sound best listening at a vertical level at or above drivers, especially if in a more nearfield listening scenario. |
Right you are Mapman. There are actually four adjustment switches on the back of the 5000's, one of the selling points for going to the top of the line. The 4000's are actually the same speaker without the adjustment circuits. So if you know the size of your room and don't plan on moving them, John at Ohm can set the adjustment from the factory on a set of 4000's. |
...then you have the on-board adjustments to match to room size and acoustics so room size should not be a problem.
--Mapman The 4000's are actually the same speaker without the adjustment circuits. So if you know the size of your room and don't plan on moving them, John at Ohm can set the adjustment from the factory on a set of 4000's.
--Carja Can one set the adjustment or does it have to be set at the Factory? It seems, if one can swing the extra coin, that the 5000 is more to be preferred over the 4000 given this flexibility. |
Carja - I posted some comments on your system page. When you say you moved them in a bit and were surrounded by sound, does that mean you are getting more depth of soundstage? |
I posted this to Carja's system thread but am including here also in case of value to others:
I think the key to soundstage depth with the OHMS is distance from rear wall (several feet if possible) + some degree of sound reflectivity off the rear wall. The sliding glass door can work to your advantage with this but not if the speakers are too close to the wall.
Distance from rear and side walls is needed to get adequate delay for reflected sound to produce needed spatial queues for widest and deepest soundstage.
Since OHM omni sound output is attenuated by default to the rear to accomodate placement closer to walls desired by many for practical reasons, having a surface behind that refelcts the sound more can actually help to retain the needed reflected sound levels desired since the speakers are further out from the rear wall than intended and reflected sound levels lower in magnitude as a result compared to say a pure omni which will produce higher sound levels reflected from rear (and side) walls and when set up properly with distance from walls produce very deep soundstage.
This is what you would hear with a true omni like mbl set up with 5 feet or more distance from rear and side walls.
There are some good references on the internet that explains the geometry of stereo soundstage imaging and how distance from walls of 5 feet or greater in a typical set up is generally needed for best results. The listeners position in terms of distance to speakers relative to distance traveled by side and rear reflected sound is also a key factor.
Also note that the addjustments on the 5000s are useful for boosting bass levels somewhat as may often be needed when speakers are far away from walls with less bass level reinforcement. Without these adjustments, bass that sounds right closer to walls may be somewhat less if away from walls. However distance from walls is needed for the biggest and deepest soundstage. It is a dilemma. OHM does not suggest 5 feet or more distance from the rear wall. That kind of common setup as recommended is a good compromise for most in that speaks are out of the way, bass levels good, but soundstage maybe not as deep as might be, if that is something that matters to you. ITs probably a lesser consideration for most, so a reasonable solution.
FWIW, in my main rig with the 5s, I keep speaks over 5 feet out from rear wall and 4 feet or so from sides, the most possible in a fairly long and narrow room.
In my 2 channel a/v rig where the 100s reside, they are closer to the rear wall for WAF and other practical reasons in our heavily used family room. SOundstage is not as deep, but still pretty good. |
Finsup the 4000's are set at the factory, but John Strohbeen (the president) is very reachable by phone and would be happy to talk with you about your particular room. The 4000's are cheaper by $1000 so one has to decide if the flexibility is worth it. I personally find that the adjustments are subtle and the instructions that come with the units are helpful. For example, there are recommended settings for corner placement, wall placement, and room placement that come with the 5000's. I personally wouldn't want a different set of speakers- I LOVE these units, and everyone who has heard them votes the same.
Bondman yes that is correct; I already had a lot, especially when I was well back and slightly above my normal listening chair by sitting in my adjacent dining room. At that point, some 30 feet or more away, it was like sitting in the balcony of a live performance.
Thanks mapman- I posted a comment in my system page.
BTW I think that Pacific Valve sells top notch tube equipment and accessories, but I know that off brand Chinese imports are not everybody's cup of tea- the resell value is not so good, and there is not a prestige factor. |
Thanks Mapman and Carja. I'd love to get my 2000s farther away from the back and side walls, but I have very little space to work with. The speakers are in an alcove of my 22' X 18' basement (with only 6' ceilings). The alcove is only about 9 or 10 ft. wide, and my seating position is about 12 ft from the front wall. So, with the 2000s about 3' away from the front wall, and about 2 to 2.5' away from the side walls, the speakers are barely 5' apart. Any closer together, and they would obscure the Plasma TV. I do have some acoustic foam at driver height behind and to the sides of the speakers, and I am thinking of removing at least the foam that is along the front wall.
So, if I am understanding this correctly, Mapman thinks my Plasma TV centered on the front wall between the Ohms might be a good thing as is, while Carja would suggest covering up the TV with curtains for critical listening. Hmmm. What to do?
I love the sound I have now, but there is not much depth, so I will continue to experiment.
By the way, a local speaker builder has a wonderful web site with many interesting essays on hi-fi, including some on omnidirectional speakers. Check it out:
http://www.parallelhomeaudio.net/PAMain.html |
I don't expect a wall mount TV alone to make much difference. Maybe somewhat more so if low enough to be at the primary reflection points on the rear wall based on where you listen from. |
I scored 2 mercury perfect presence lps today at goodwill for $1 each. Bingo! I've never heard of this label on lp before. The sound off tne ohms is stunning! |
Mapman - I own a few. All bought for a buck or three each. I have a Mercury Living Stereo of Fredrick Fennel conducting songs by Cole Porter, engineered by Wilma Fine (pre-Mrs. Cozart days). It is pristine, both the LP and the jacket, and is one of the best sounding LPs I have ever heard. Enjoy your new finds! |
It's a shame that they don't make many recordings like those anymore.
The inside of the one lp's gatefold is filled with a bunch of technical information and charts and diagrams outlining the recording process in great detail, including where the players were located in the recording venue for reference in that the expectation is that you should be able to locate them within the soundstage at the locations indicated.
Back in those days (very early 60's), hifi stereo recordings were new and a novelty that was marketed to the masses based on the sound quality in packages like these.
Imagine that?
I was just a young kid at the time but I think that was probably a big part of creating my interest in music and stereos at the time.
THen the novelty of stereo hifi wore off I suppose for most except us audiophile type kooks and the rest is history I suppose. |
Nice to see this thread is still going. I had the Micros and was blown away by their sound! I exchanged for a larger Ohm 100- and now 3000. Utterly captivating in their sound. |
Sndsrtaud,
What's your assessment of the 3000s versus the 100s you had prior? Do you know if the 100s were series 2 or 3?
Thanks. |
Mapman. The 3000 are on the way from Ohm. I moved to a different house and am using different amps. I needed to go with the 3000 as my listening room has about 2X the volume of my old room.
But heres the thing.Ive owned/reviewed the following speakers over the past 40 years: Wharfedale W60, EPI 150, Braun L710, DCM Time Window, Spendor SP1/2, Mirage M3-si, Monitor Audio Studio 6, APL Serenade, JM Labs Daline 3.1, Micron Karat, Wisdom Audio 50, Clements 206di, Shamrock Eire, Equation 7, 9, Silverline S12, SR15, SR17, Panatella, Sonatina, Sonata, Galante Rhapsody, SAP Quartete, Klipschorn, Klipsch Belle, Heresy, KG4, Shahinian Obelisk, Omega Super 3, Harbeth C7II, Lamhorn, Altec Valencia, JM Reynaud Twin, Trente, Offrande, Magneplanar 1.2, GPA 604-8H, Ohm Micro Walsh, 100, ...
IMO, the Ohms are on the top of the heap.
Ill be sure to post an update once I get them, etc. |
I should also add countless other speakers Ive heard on my trips to CES, Stereophile show, etc. |
Sndsrtaud - Thanks for posting that very extensive list of speakers! I have to admit that I have not heard of many of them, and have not heard most of them. I have heard some of the Silverline Audio speakers, and I usually refer to the Bolero as my dream speaker, so I found it interesting that you like your Ohms better than the Sonata, just one notch below the Bolero. Of course, loudspeaker preference is very personal, but I am with you on this. Every month I get to hear some very good speakers at my local audio club meeting, and it rare that I don't look forward to going home and firing up my Ohm 2000s afterwards.
Mapman - I always keep an eye out for those early stereo LPs with the gatefold that include technical info and a diagram showing the layout of the performers. I have about a dozen of them at this point. They usually sound quite good. Some are demo records produced by or for an electronics manufacturer, like the Admiral demo LP I have, complete with pictures in the gatefold of Admiral console stereos! I love this hobby. |
Some of the Silverline designs like the Boleros in particular appear pretty formidable. Nice to hear the OHMs might play in the same league. |
Bondman and Mapman. I am quite familiar with the Silverline as I reviewed the SR17 for SoundStage!, worked a couple shows with Alan and sold the line when I had my shop. Absent a couple of duds which were short lived, Silverline makes some really excellent loudspeakers.
I cant say the Ohms are better because the Ohms, being a quasi-omni are a different type of speaker with a different presentation- a presentation I personally prefer and I think many other folks would too. |
Snds,
You're right. It's all about the presentation that differentiates the ohms from other good designs. . |
Oh gosh... I did it now. Drove four hours each way yesterday from Syracuse to Philly and back... returning with a pristine pair of restored Ohm F speakers! I've been watching them get re-listed on Craigslist for a few months with no action - likely because the owner was holding firm at $1300 and wanted to sell them with local pickup only. He mentioned that they had new surrounds etc. but didn't specify who did the work. We agreed on a price of $1200 based on successful audition and only them did he mention that the rebuild was done by Bill LeGall of Millersound. Google him and you'll discover that he is one of the only two people routinely mentioned as having the requisite skills and experience to properly restore Ohm F's that have failed internal and external foam. Dale Harder of HHR Exotic Speakers is, of course, the other qualified guy but I have the impression that most of his time and energy these days is focused on building his own line of TLS speakers using the Walsh design principles with new materials and some design improvements. Much as I wish I could afford a pair of Dale's speakers it's not int he budget right now so these F's were my best bet.
In addition to putting in new silver wiring from the banana plug receptacles to the inside of cone (or so it appears,) Bill redid the foam and rubber surrounds, removed the goop of the old internal foam damping material and then used strategically placed placed pieces of Dynamat for damping on the internal side of the metal portion of the cone (I'm not sure but I think maybe this is done only on the titanium section?) Perhaps most promising is that he added an additional spider that relives some of the workload of and stress on the original spider. The purchase included the top hats (grilles) which are still in reasonable shape although I may recover them in black grill cloth or perhaps even build a new set from scratch. They also cane with base assemblies that allow them to be raised about 14" higher off the floor. I'm trying the bases for now and will then remove them to compare sound. Good thing I don't have Spousal Acceptance Factor to contend with - these things are huge to begin with and the bases have them coming in at five feet tall! The cabinets were stuffed with some good quality cotton acoustic grade batting for dampening but the seller advised me that Bill said to remove 1/2 to 3/4 of it after the rebuilt cones had been broken in. I took about half of it out but saved what I removed - just in case.
On to what counts: the sound. Holy Crap! I fell in love with the original Ohm Walsh sound back in 1973 or 1974 when I was in high school and heard a pair of A's or F's (not sure which) at a Tech Hi-Fi store. Despite the challenges of my smallish living room - which has bookshelves, a fireplace and the audio gear shelves on the wall behind the speakers, a four foot wide open archway into the dining room to the side of the left speaker, and an eight foot wide open archway across the back (with an entry hall and stairwell behind) - the sound is still incredible. I have the speakers roughly eight feet apart (cone center to cone center, just under three feet from cone center to back wall, and finally the left speakers is about two feet in from the open archway and the right speaker is just over three feet from the side wall.
Bass response on the right material is staggering... notes seem to hang in the air... soundstage is holographic... and placement of individual instruments is so precise that with eyes closed it's easy to think you are in the recording studio or in front of a stage in a small venue - hearing it live.
Yes.... I finally have my speakers for life! Still need to sort out a few things. I was advised that there is an audible improvement if one plugs speaker wires directly into the banana receptacles on the back side of the driver assembly instead of the external ones at the cabinet base that lead up to the ones at the drivers. I've been running them that way today and can't really tell if it is more transparent with better highs as the tweakers suggested it would be (could be my aging ears just don't hear it.) I'm looking for some 18" square concrete pads (the ones that are used as garden walkway pavers and look like stone) to go underneath. I have a set of 12" square pads for the Ohm Walsh 2's and there was a noticeable tightening and improvement in bass response when I added those. Dale Harder strongly recommends using cones - I might try that instead. I've also seen some comments that amps capable of direct current power can be dangerous with these speakers. My HK Citation 22 (200 wpc at 8 ohms) has a "high current mode." Do any of you know if this is an issue of concern? The seller was running them with a 60 wpc solid state Bryston but they really do sound better now through my HK and Conrad-Johnson PV2 than they did at audition.
By the way... the seller is a former full time musician who moved on to another occupation but tinkers with audio as a hobby. His ongoing "project speakers" make the Ohm F's look like little toys - and they're powered by a 7 watt SE triode amp! He has horn loaded Altec cabinets that are just under eight feet but has added external Electrovoice mid-range horns (the mid range horns alone weigh about 60 pounds each,) replaced the tweeter horns with ones of a more modern design (German brand whose name escapes me) and even clamped some external piezo super tweeters on the outside edges. They sounded HUGE although he didn't crank them as he's in a side by side duplex with neighbors. For me they lacked the presence of the F's but the sales i my gain :-)
On a related note - I recently acquired a second pair of Ohm Walsh 2's. They had the old style brown cloth saggy grill covers (easily replaced as Ohm sells the nice tapered black ones on their web site.) They sound exactly like my other pair of 2's but the metal cans don't have the black dampening fabric on the back side or the top - you can actually see the entire tweeter assembly and everything else inside the can (which is cool to look at.) I'm interested in selling either pair of my Ohm Walsh 2's if any of you are interested. I want to keep one pair for a second system but have to sell one to help pay for the F's. |
Congrats on your find. I remember the Ohms from my college days in the early/mis 70s too, but all I could afford were the EPI 150s.
I think stabilizing the Ohms whichever way you can will help the performance. I used a Symposium knock-off under my 100s and noticed improved focus, I will use the same under the 300s when they arrive this week.
Your pre-/amps should be fine.
Have fun! |
Correction. Im getting the 3000. speakers. |
I heard quite a lot of good things about the Ohm speakers. But I wonder why none of the pro reviewers in the real world uses omnidirectional speakers as their reference speakers. |
Omni's are a different beast with a totally different presentation. Would not make any sense to use them as a reference to compare traditional designs against. You can compare and contrast but its essentially apples and oranges.
Nevertheless, I have seen it done on occasion.
The late John Potis was an OHM speaker fan for many years, reviewed them and used them for comparison to other products he reviewed. |
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. |
Does anyone have any info on the ohm center channel. Im thinking about some micro walsh talls for ht duty b/c the small size helps WAF. Was wondering if the ohm center is also on the smaller side?
Thanks |
With recent mentions of Miller Sound and John Potis, I happened to come across this which I thought a very fun read: Road Tour |
Hey check this out. An exotic omnidirectional speaker from Italy.
http://www.themodernstyle.com/item.asp?id=alkemia_kedo&ver=en¤cy=eur |
Interesting design, but it doesn't appear to use a Walsh driver. The only other manufacturer of Walsh drivers that I know of is Physiks in Germany, who produce frightfully expensive and prodigious (the top of the line weighs nearly 1000 pounds) speakers. Part of the appeal, supposedly, of the Ohm is that the Walsh driver in original form produced coherent waveforms across the spectrum. Electrostatics should do the same. The only other "omnidirectional" speaker I've heard was the Bose 901 series, which actually uses direct and reflected sound- I never cared for them much. |
I had their original series Bose 501s in my college dorm and although they had some real limitations - for the $250 I paid (used) they had a great soundstage in a small room and served the purpose at the time. The Bose 901s used too much reflected and not enough direct sound for my taste. I listened to them back in the day around the one and only time I heard Ohm F's. My buddy's parents had 901's with the active equalizer, McIntosh for power and a high end turntable. Within a month or so of hearing their system I listened to the Ohm F's at a tech Hi-Fi store. They demo'd them with the grilles off. I was sold on the sound and the pair I just acquired.... 39 years later... sound just as good to me as when I first heard that sound. That was a great article on Bill LeGall - sounds like an amazing guy. Apparently he was only doing one set of F's per year and now no longer does them at all. The seller I dealt with lives 20 minutes away from Bill and bought them directly from Bill so I know the provenance is legit.
I repositioned them yesterday to be across the 14.5 foot long wall and they are now roughly 21" in (at the base)from the back and side walls. The only material I threw at them that was problematic was Shirley Horn's album "The Main Ingredient." Steve Novosel's acoustic bass lines were going so deep that I was getting funky resonance from the hardwood floors and the bass was crazy boomy (played a dozen or more other albums over the weekend and this was the only one where it happened. Today I bought a couple of 18" square concrete pads (look like stone but are cast concrete.) Painted them satin black, put self adhesive furniture "Super Sliders" on the bottoms and put the speaker bases and cabinets on top. Boominess is gone and the bass on Shirley's disc. although to still goes insanely deep, is taut and controlled. An audio forum I perused suggests to use two of these pads with a barely inflated inner tube between them (just enough air so that it forms a 5mm gap between them when the top pad and speakers are in place. Not sure I'll even bother with that - the improvement is so dramatic with the single pad. That being said... I think I need to start trying some homemade tube traps etc. and see what else will improve this already stellar sound. |
