vintage versus modern speakers

Larryi,

Yes, I own two pair of recent OHM Walsh. You will see them in my system pics. Not most recent X000 but the generation prior from just a couple years back.

YEs, I would agree they do sound terrific, especially when matched to an amp capable of letting them do all they can, which typically means decent power and current delivery.

THe current models are much improved from teh original OHM walsh line from the early 80s though those were no slouches either. The sound is more modern and in line with teh better modern competition in terms of detail and clarity. I've owned various OHMs among others since 1978. My big OHM F5s are my go to speakers currently for uncompromised sound in a larger room.

Fs and As were a much different design, though the newer OHMs leverage the Walsh driver design principle from those.

Each has some unique advantages and disadvantages. Check the forums here and you will find a lot of good discussion.

I live in the DC/Baltimore metro area if you are ever in teh area and want to stop by for a listen.

While I had to put my Dyanoudio Contour S1.4's in storage for a bit because my son is crawling, I swapped in some old KLH Model 6's. While they don't sound as extended and detailed as the Dynaudio's, the McCormack 225 (upgraded)/RLD (also Platinum upgraded) amp makes them sound pretty good. I do like the more coherent sound of the KLH's... sounds a little more integrated in some respects than the Dyaudios which seem to lose a little of that in their focus on detail. That said I did have the caps replaced on the KLH's. I will eventually get the Dyanudio's back, though may move further up the Dyanudio line. I do like the Dyanudio sound better than the KLH... the KLH has a nice midrange but no real extension in the upper frequencies. I have a sub (REL Stadium III) so some of the flabbiness of the bass of the KLH is a little less pronounced, but its still there.

I have Dynaudio COntour 1.3 mkII monitors. These are overachieving little guys that hit way above their size and cost and deliver many delights, but they are not nearly as coherent sounding top to bottom as my newer OHM Walshes. My older "vintage" Walshes from 1983 were similar in that regard.

My triangles are somewhere inbetween in terms of being coherent. Evey speaker old and new has its relative strengths and weaknesses. No two are the same regardless of age.

I always loved the sound of rock on acoustic suspension speakers such as AR or KLH, and missed it when everything seemed to go to ported or passive radiators.

in hindsight the amps most people were using in the 70s with whatever speakers they had were probably the weaker link. I'd guesstimate most speakers I heard back then on your typical Japanese or similar receiver or integrated amp would sound at least twice as good with even decent quality modern amplification.

Acoustic suspension designs back then were probably the best technical match for many of teh 40 watt or less SS amps/receivers of the day. The designs that extended the low end response like those with ports or passives requierd more power usually and the same amp would be at a disadvantage trying to drive those to their max which in general would be a notch above int erms of being able to deliver more extended bass with teh right amplification.