Shameless Poll: Pearl vs Ohm vs Zu

Ohms.....but I'd want a pair of all of the current lines, so screwed prior to start.

Either that or a 3d 5axis CNC.....also a non-starter....

"...a kite won't cut it, KLAUS!  Get the memo...?!"

I for one is happy to see the Ohms' lead the straw poll here, although in another forum  they'd be trampled upon.  I chalk that up to habituation and basic design restrictions between an Ohm/Walsh/omni 'anything else' versus the venerable cabinet profile array of pistonic drivers....a light bulb v. a flood lamp being the default description.

Which format recreates 'a reality' more like reality itself, a field of sound v. a source that only disappears when paired properly.  More sensitive to the space it's in due to it's radial pattern of dispersion, true...but the standard issue does as well at best....

But I'm just 'imh'ing...*L* 
 

@livinon2wheels ...and that walsh>typ. tweeter format is what keeps this one from being an all out supporter of current Ohm offerings....
For grins and to just being able to play them without building a pair o' boxes, I 'Ohm Walshed' a pair of vintage' Utah 12" with it's matching exponential horns....

Sound stage suffers a tad. but Loud? Yes.

If an omni is what one seeks. be consistent because it actually does matter.

I've been toying with an update on the Infinity 'ice cream cone' Walsh for awhile now but it can feel like brain surgery with a Dremel.

@audionoobie... the loudness issue was a fault on the early Ohms ( "....great at 200, blows at 201.." ) that surrendering of the large drivers' size helped....

Personal approach:  A good sub, mind the xover...

You want Loud?
Add mid to high drivers to taste.

I've done a 'surround Walsh' array that accomplished just that.

It's all tied into dispersion, a cone at 90ish on-axis vs. 360.  Less radians at your ears with lower 'information' available as well....

It's a quest with an answerable question....;)

Happy Friday, y'all....👍