Are Ohm-Walsh micros and 1000 series disrespected because of omni-directional design??

What Mapman said!!

I still have my Mirage M5si's, which are technically bipole speakers, but have narrow depth to be as omni as possible. I've had them in daily use for nearly 19 years.

I also had Mirage Omnipolars in my 2-channel living room. Omnis sound natural. They generally sound like live music played in a live space. They throw a realistic 3-D soundstage, and as with live music, you can even listen from outside the pair of speakers and still have an even-sounding soundstage, just as you would with live music.

Reviews of omnis frequently mention that "you won't get pinpoint imaging" as you would with mini-monitors or whatnot, but overwhelmingly, you don't get pinpoint imaging in live performances either unless the ensemble is small and you're sitting fairly close.
 
Another thing I learned when I was shopping for speakers two years ago--the overall soundstage and imaging of omnis is not that different from a front-firing speaker with wide dispersion and uniform in-room power response. In other words, good off-axis frequency response. In particular I was auditioning Sonus Faber Venere 2.5s and--although they  have a different overall dispersion pattern--they had a pretty similar forward-firing presentation to my Mirage OMD-15s.

To me, absolute edge-defined pinpoint imaging, while fascinating, is sort of a parlor trick and doesn't often reflect the live music experience.

Unless you're a gotta-have-it pinpoint image junkie, omni directional speakers do just fine, throw a very sociable soundstage, and are less prone to localized suckouts and beaming.

"Reviews of omnis frequently mention that "you won’t get pinpoint imaging" as you would with mini-monitors or whatnot, but overwhelmingly, you don’t get pinpoint imaging in live performances either unless the ensemble is small and you’re sitting fairly close. "

Good point.

With the OHMs set up right imaging is about as good as one would expect at a live performance. That’s part of what makes the sound more lifelike and convincing to me. More like a live performance even if a highly mixed recording.   If recorded live and well with simple miking, then bingo, you are there.   Many Mapleshade and Dorian recordings in particular are recorded this way.  Some others as well but only a small minority.

On most material, I find that the imaging/staging from the Ohms is unusually convincing.  Placement in space is specific enough that sources can easily be located and the spread across the room, between and beyond the speakers, is continuous in way that feels very organic to me.  Further, there's a sense of weight and body to those localized images that strikes me as unusually natural sounding (vis a vis designs using narrower dispersion patterns).  I never quite understood this criticism of omnis.  It's even less appropriate to the MBL speakers, which (tho they have tonality issues to my ear) are about as SOTA in this area as anything I've ever heard.

I can't resist being the devil's advocate re this forum...

I like omnis.  Having heard the original Ohm's decades ago, I was enthralled by what I heard.  Never could afford a pair, never had the space to live with them either.
However...the current Ohm's are not a true Walsh radiator.  They are a pleasant experience and a good affordable line of speakers.
Google Walsh speakers.  Look at the 'images of..' page.  You will see amidst the pics the original Ohms, with their conical elements.  You will also see the current Ohms as well.  If one keeps looking, you might notice a pic of what's UNDER the cylindrical mesh under the grille.
It's an inverted speaker; likely carefully chosen or design, but fairly typical.
But it's NOT a truncated cone as in the originals.
There is a big difference in that.  The Walsh patent goes into why and how.

I've been engaged in DIY'ing Walsh radiators for my own bemusement for awhile now, 'spoofing' a slightly larger version of the DDD driver used in the German Physiks units.  They're not 'perfect'....yet.  But, having heard the 'new' Ohms as well as the 'old' Ohms, I'm pleased with what I've been able to accomplish so far.  Not 'audiophile' quality....yet.  But I spend more of my time of late listening to my 'steampunk speakers' (a friend's observation, which actually tickles me) than my 'regular' speakers, 'warts' and all.

The new Ohms are nice speakers.  I will not speak negatively of them, as they fill a niche.  HHR offers an updated version of the original design, and I believe they appear at some shows.  HHR is a true Walsh unit.  Both concerns are 'web-only' companies.

And then there's MBL.  Omnis about as far as current tech allows.  They're supposed to be fantastic.  And at their price, they'd better be.

I'll carry on with what I'm doing. *S* 

Jim,

Your observation is on point.  The current Ohms are less true to the original Walsh design than are the HHRs.  Just one question:

What makes you think that that is a good thing (for HHR)?

BTW, I've never heard the HHR.  For all I know, it blows away the Ohms.  I just don't assume that that's necessarily true.  Particularly on the basis that you've identified.  John S's variation is certainly less expensive to produce.  It's also less fragile.  Beyond that, you'd need to do a side by side to determine which design you prefer.  Outside of Mapman (and John Strohbeen), I'm not sure who is on a position to make that judgement.