Ohm Walsh F Hope of Resurrection

Given the difference in dispersion patterns between those two as I understand it, I would wonder if the same location can serve both best.
The Fs are full omni so probably will benefit from more distance from all walls I would expect. Never heard Fs but have heard mbl and GP. Mbl in particular only sounded uniquely and mind blowingly 3 dimensional in a very dealer custom showroom with lots of distance to walls, especially rear wall, non parallel side walls to the rear, and treatments (old United  Audio showroom in Annapolis Junction MD) Same setup at shows: way more meh.
Also I seem to recall Fs even new only spec’ed to 16 kHz whereas most speakers in their day were spec’ed to 20 kHz. Most people raved about the imaging but not about the high end extension. Separate super tweeters would be an interesting add I would think.

mapman, yes, I concur; this has been rapid testing, and comparison of same location for a quick read on the performance of the Ohm and the King Tower soundstage. The positioning had nothing to fix the inherent problems I discovered and addressed. I would presume that somewhat different location of these omni speakers might be optimal over time. 

The speaker now "breathes" as I imagined it could. The upper end of the spectrum is transformed. I had been thinking, "Well this stinks; these would need super-tweeters to save them," but the fact is, they wouldn't, not with the speaker in that condition. It wouldn't tighten up the bass, or truly balance the frequency spectrum. I wouldn't add anything to the resolution problem cased by the overstuffed cabinet.

The additional treble now is sufficient that they sound pretty well balanced. I would say they lean to the soft side of treble, but nowhere near the faint treble they had before moving half the foam down to the cross member of the cabinet. The driver was literally being suffocated by operating with a constrained air space. It literally had nowhere to push the air! One can imagine how that would dampen the materials of the cone! How can one get a natural ring to treble when back force is pushing on such light material? It's stunning to think that the design gave so little consideration to it, considering how basic and immutable the laws governing it. But it's easy to be an armchair critic of the past when assessing with half a century of tech development in culture. I am guessing it was seen as a brilliant move, along with the driver design. 

Soundstage has such a pervasive influence upon the listener. When approaching a new speaker, I try to actively assess, then lessen attention to the character of the soundstage, as fixating on it can cause someone to overlook issues with performance. I am happy that I used my experience to pick apart the performance, because it has led to this speaker being upgraded quite nicely. 

Music is a 3-d experience to various degrees live. When a 3-d soundstage is maximized as I have heard uniquely possible with omnis, it is possible to discern a lot of detail that may be lost in the congestion otherwise.

Different forms of detail with different genres. Omni wins in terms of scale, atomization of images, which can seem to be more info. It loses when it comes to image density and localization, which is a loss of info. 

Douglas, in the restoration, did they do anything to the 'putty' like stuff that's lining the inside surface of the titanium portion of the cone? I doubt they did that. If nothing was done, as it's difficult to do this, the sound will be audibly different from the original F.