Ohm Walsh 2000s vs Vandersteen 2Ces

Audio connection,

Who's babbling? So tell us something about the vandies then if you
can help answer the question.

Modern ohms do not sound like those from years ago.

I have heard vandersteens but not as much as ohms.

One clear difference between vandies and omnis including ohm is vandies
appear to work more like conventional box designs in regards to having a
small well defined sweet spot whereas omnis like ohms maintain imaging
and coherency of the soundstage and timbre better over a wide area, like
listening from different seats/perspectives live in a concert venue.

Humbuster,

I apologize for posting my disappointment in how Audioconnection responded to Mapman rather than posting a response to your question.

I have not heard the Ohms and thus I’m not in a position to offer an opinion but I do wish you best in your pursuit.

Actually, Vandy's are more a stepped baffle, but not an open baffle and provide both time and phase coherency. I've owned both speakers (although different versions) and both have their strengths (and weaknesses). In short, the Ohms have a larger, more diffuse soundstage while the Vandy's Image better although through a narrower window. Just depends on what you value most. Best of luck.

"Vandy's are more a stepped baffle"

Tex, thanks for clarifying that. I realized after posting that "open baffle" may not be the most accurate description.

Vandersteen and OHM both focus on delivering coherent sound, and seem to be mentioned together fairly often, but the technical approaches are totally different.

FWIW the thing that makes the OHMs unique, even among omnidirectional speakers, is the OHM CLS (Coherent Line SOurce) version of a Walsh driver used. Google search and read up on Walsh/CLS driver/speaker for more insight there. Vandersteen has its own approach for phase and time coherency that is also very well documented.