Ohm Speakers, thoughts?


I have long dismissed Ohm speakers as anything that could be competitive in todays state of the art. But of course I want to believe that this "old" American company still has some horsepower left to compete with asian built speakers built by people that take in less money in a week than my dog sitter takes in the couple hours it takes to let my dogs out to crap when I am away for a day :)? The reviews I have read here and there report incredible imaging but what about other aspects of the Ohm 5 II. Any thoughts?
nanderson
Oh, well, I'm back for at least one more go-round!

Could "piston" the CLS piston drivers used in Ohms Walsh line speakers actually be an improvement in some ways in regards to sound as well as perhaps in reliability over even a perfectly functioning F or even A?

Having never heard a pure Walsh driver, I can't say. But during a listening session with the F5s yesterday, I was reminded why I started looking to better my Maggies in the first place.

It wasn't just a search for a lower and quality bottom end (and easier placement in the room), but also the dynamics and impact of the sound. Properly set-up Maggies and their ilk are magical even at the lowest volumes, but they do not move a lot of air and create the air pressure differentials that I believe are physically required to reproduce a live performance,especially for large musical ensembles like a symphony orchestra or big band or even for loud emplified formats like rock, at realistic volume levels.

These types of music require a speaker that can create significant air pressure differentials in the room, in my opinion, like a larger dynamic speaker does, which is why I jumped off the planar speaker bandwagon in the first place to some extent. I like the "magic" detail and clarity of these designs (like Maggies) however, especially at lesser volumes. Good monitor speakers can compete in this arena but are still to small to really excel in delivering realistic "oomph" to the music when needed.

So my question is, could the Ohm CLS driver, based on the Walsh design, be superior to even a perfectly constructed and/or commercially viable Walsh driver (at least any that have been built to-date or that are even remotely commercially available) in terms of dynamics and impact?

I do not miss my Maggies with the F5's. The sound has a similar presentation but with "oomph". I had a magical moment just yesterday unlike any I've had prior with my systems with the Concord Jazz CD recording of "The Classic COncert Live" with MelTorme, GErry Mulligan and GEorge Shearing. When I closed my eyes, Mel Torme and the big band were performing in my basement family room! There was one extended note in a vocal finale where I had to look around to see what was happening! I thought maybe someone had snuck up behind me! It just totally transcended any vocal renedering and listening experience I recall! Outstanding!
Two additional questions for Dale:

1) Do you sell Walsh drivers designed specifically for the modified (now ported) Ohm f5 cabinet?

2) When I read your description of the Walsh driver, it is not clear to me why a Walsh driver is not pistonic. IT sounds like it uses a voice coil and a foam surround in the suspension similar to conventional drivers, though the similarity appears to end there.

Thanks.
Mapman, Have your read all the other posts on this thread?Other than the driver/cabinet orientation, the current OHM's are not very much like the Walsh OHM's. Contrary to OHM's marketing jargon or not, by audiophile standards* the current OHMs are not a line source*, not coherent* (time and phase accurate, able to pass a square wave), not omni-directional*, and not bending wave* single driver* speakers. While the current OHM's may be easier to drive, play louder, and be more reliable (time will tell), than their thirty year old predecessors, those qualities were always availble from other different designs, which quite frankly the current OHM's have more in common with anyway.
To the best of my knowledge if one wants a true Walsh design, one would have to go to Dale. If one wants a more modern Walsh design which may mitigate some of the issues of the original Walsh design, one should seek out those speakers that use German Physiks DDD (Dick's Dipole Driver). It should be mentioned that most of the speakers that use the DDD, do deviate some from the original Walsh system, though much, much less than OHM's current offerings.
I'm not here to steal your joy. If you find the current OHM's to provide you with an appealling sound and you find them to be a good value, by all means enjoy! But, please let's not suggest to others that they are somethng they're not.
Unsound, I believe I clearly stated that the two are different designs.

CAn we agree that they are similar in certain ways?

I'm just trying to understand exactly how the two are the same and how different since I may never be able to hear them together in an a/b test to decide how they sound different, which in the end is all I would really care about. I am an engineer by trade and appreciate the technical aspects of different speaker designs, but in the end all I really care about myself is how the product sounds.

Dale has described the Walsh driver in great detail. But the best explanation I've heard about how the Ohm Walsh Series 3 drivers manage to produce the smooth omnidirectional soundfield, which some who have heard both say at least sounds similar to the original Walsh speakers, is able to do this.

I know its not the directional tweeter that produces the consistent sonic timbre in an omnidirectional manner, so it must be the downward facing driver, whatever that is, WAlsh or otherwise.

Though shaped differently, doesn't the sound emanate from the back of the CLS driver as it does from the "true Walsh"?

The best description I've heard is that the sound "leaks through" and tricks the ears somehow. Well god bless that leak if so! All leaks should work this well!

The history of the Walsh driver between its conception by Lincoln Walsh and its most famous realization by Ohm is also not clear to me.

Ohm is a very small shop as I understand it. I do not believe they employ teams of engineers. Did John Strohbeen, who as I understand it is the founder and primary engineering force behind Ohm since its inception in 60's, design and build the A's and F's? I believe he and/or his team designed the CLS drivers used now for certain. IF true, then As, Fs and CLS speakers were all designed and brought to market by the same person, who is an MIT educated engineer as I understand it. If not, then they all at least came from the same company headed by the same person at all times.

I'm really just interested in learning and enjoying the music.
I found a wikipedia entry for Lincoln Walsh to help answer some of my own questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Walsh

It provides some info regarding the relationship between Lincoln Walsh, his speaker designs, and others including Ohm and John Strohbeen.

it states:

"Unfortunately, Walsh died before his speaker was released to the public. Current Ohm Chief Engineer, John Strohbeen further developed Walsh's concepts."