Ohm Speakers, thoughts?

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."

My one-month comparison:

My perception in comparing the F and Series 3 drivers is that the new drivers have a more powerful low-end. The tweeters have a louder very high-end although directional. The 200s play louder than the F's could. I wonder what the 300s sound like.

I perceive the upper midrange on the new drivers to be a little more restrained than the original F's. But this seems to me like a small variation on the original character, which did not have in-your-face midrange either.

In the room where I spent a year listening to the F's they provided gut-punch air movement as well. However, this was the fully-enclosed living room of a small apartment. I'd be surprised if they could do the same in the room I'm listening in now.

This morning I was experimenting with repositioning. I ended up standing directly between the two speakers, and out of the direct path of the tweeters. I could still perceive the 3d soundstage arced widely in front of me.

Unsound, I guess the only way that you would be able to appreciate the significance of experiencing this "Walshness", the only "Walshness" that matters to me would be to hear it. Perhaps the sound of the speaker is less important to you than the implementation.