Ohm "Tall "speakers: Overall 2000 responses on a thread from 2008

There is a post from 2008 about the Ohm "Tall" speakers.  It is astounding that this thread garnered over 2000 responses.  Does anyone know if Ohm has improved this model over the last 11 years instead of just sitting back.  

Regardless of the fact that it is officially classified as an "Omni directional" design  how does it rate as an "audiophile" speaker?  The price has increased since 2008, but has the sound quality improved by legitimate upgrades to this particular model?. 

For the record, it has a few new competitors, in particular, the Larsen 4.2 and 6.2 speakers.  Though, they are not necessarily tagged "OMNIS"  they share similar characteristics to the Ohms.

I recently auditioned  the Larsen 4.2. They were impressive for the overall clarity of the midrange, naturalness of timbre, and strong bass for such a small speaker (30 inches tall) which must be placed directly against the wall Soundstaging was good but not great.. 

The  Larsen 4.2 retail  for $2200 which is close in price to the Ohm "Talls"  The model 6.2 retails for $4300  and touted to offer more of the same sound quality as the 4.2.   Larsen does not offer a home trial option 




SJ-I really do not know what an "Audiophile" speaker is, I have my thoughts on maybe what you are asking, but I will leave that one alone.

I have owned both the Ohm MWT and the Larsen Model 4.2, I responded to your Larsen thread awhile back. I think Ohm make updates when and where they feel the need, the "Thousand" series probably was one of the latest with the cabinets and maybe drivers, best to get the real information on that from John/Ohm themselves.

I think both of these speakers are more alike in many ways than not, both are really great at what they do. Whether or not they are the thing for you is only going to be figured out in you doing the listening to them. You have already listened to the Larsen and have somewhat of an opinion on them, why not take Ohm up with their money-back guarantee and hear them in your own home and system?

Might be worth looking at, or not. But it could be the only way you will ever find what you might be listening for?

The current xx00 line came out since 2008.  John Strohbeen always describes the difference as "evolutionary but not revolutionary".  I heard the current line at Cap Audiofest last year.  Did not hear anything radically different from my models at home which are from the prior x00 series III line. 

To frazeur:  Thank you for the advice. I have been offered the same about Ohms' 120 day home trial. I  actually contacted John Strohbeen a few times, but no demo pairs of the MWT's were available..

Let me clarify my position on several points.  First, I am not looking for a particular type of sound, but something better than the speakers, I currently own, the Golden Ear Technology model 7 speakers. This is a very good speaker, and I can probably live with them forever. It does the things that a "high-fidelity" speaker should do, but over the last four years  I have identified its shortcomings. Comparing it to the Larsen 4.2's, I would say the Larsen's sound very natural and musical in the midrange up to the mid-treble The GET 7 has much better highs and possibly greater dynamics. One particular area of the Larsen's that was stunning ( for its size) was its clear, impactful and solid bass. In my opinion. the Larsen "tends" toward being an audiophile level speaker because they bring you into the music and hold your attention. I can say that is much less true of the GET 7'S. because they sound more like typical hi-fi than real or engaging music. Nevertheless, Sandy Gross of GET has built  one hell of speaker for $1400.

On this issue of engaging and/or musical sound quality, Read Herb Reichert's review of the Wharfdale Linton Heritage.85  speakers. Overall, he concludes that the speaker "plays music" in the tradition of some of the greatest vintage speakers of the past. I owned the Wharfdale 80th Anniversary bookshelf which is an impressive, easy to listen to speaker, but never moved toward audiophile level or sound quality.  Reichert's "go to speaker" I think is still the Devore O-96. and at times one of the smaller Harbeth, or Sterling Broadcast monitors.  Regardless, that is one man's opinion, but I have come to admire his reviews which employ a few of his favorite integrated amps to see which one mates well and does the best job bringing life to the speaker on review.

Second, I only mentioned the OHMS because of its small size and slim profile. The price range is similar to the Larsens, and possibly the build quality. Both are appealing because I want to downsize my system, and reclaim some of my living room.

I not sure this  reveals my entire purpose, but for the record here is a chronological list of speakers I have owned over the last 45 years, and dates)  Rectilinear 10's (197I);  Bose 501's  (1973)  ESS 7's (1975)  Double Advents (1976-1980);  KEF 104ab's (1980); B&W Matrix 3's MKII; (1986);  Vandersteen 1c; (2001)  Silverline Prelude MKII  (2005);  Acoustic Zen Adagios (2011) Golden Ear Technology model 7 (2016)   




Your reply helps SJ! Helps to put things in perspective overall I think. I can say that in my opinion, I think the Larsen is probably a bit better overall than the Ohm MWT, mainly a bit more meat on the bones in the lower end, and a fuller, more robust midrange. 

Upper ends are probably more similar than not, both do a very nice job presenting a great soundstage, and in my opinion, imaging is very good. Also, both do a very good job with image height, something a lot of speakers do not do quite as well with. 

The Ohm might do a slight bit better on stage depth, but in the end, might be a toss up really, as I felt both, once again, do a good job, especially seeing how the Larsen is a wall boundary type speaker, and the MWT is close to being one, although it doesn’t have quite the same constraints here. 

One thing i might add, the Ohm MWT is not a true Omni, at least in the normal sense, and neither is the Larsen really for that matter, but close enough maybe. The Ohm can be purchased however, with the tweeter made to fire directly upwards, and the attenuation felt removed in the back portion of the can for a more “Omni” arrangement. I had a pair made this way from the factory, and was quite pleased with its presentation for both music as well as using it as rear surrounds for film. It is quite good in that mode! 

Also, looking at pricing and what each model is capable of, I would generally say that the Ohm 1000 is probably more in line capability wise to the Larsen. Of course everyone’s mileage may differ slightly, but that is more my observation based on real listening. 

The above speakers of course, certainly have a different perspective from forward firing, box speakers, so that is something you must determine if you like it enough to live with it or not. I can also see(hear) how you might favor the treble response of the GE speaker, that type of tweeter can be somewhat addicting. But, as anything, the whole speaker has to do its part. 

I would maybe keep keep in touch with John on a pair of MWT’s or 1000’s though, if you can get a listen to them, it at least would give you another data point in your search. Have fun, enjoy the trip! 
Sunnyjim -- I went from a pair of Golden Ear 7s to a pair of Ohm 1000s just about one year ago. I've been very pleased with the Ohms in my setup. They have great voicing and a very natural soundstage -- its nice to be able to move around the room and have the image respond as if one were at a live presentation. The 1000s are a shade less efficient than the GEs but still no problem for my amp (a Bel Canto c5i.) I heartily recommend them.
Misstl I also run a pair of OHMs off a Bel Canto c5i.   Mine are Ohm 100s series 3 which is an 8" driver in vintage Walsh 2 cabinets.    Very nice!  

Thank you to all, (especially frazeur 1 and Mmisstl) for their responses and advice. I will keep you posted. Still would like to hear the Larsen 6.2  to compare to 4.2 and possibly the Ohm MWT.  Could consider the Ohm 1000 somewhere down the line.

Cheers to all,