Ohm Speakers, thoughts?

Very nice information being posted. Thank you.

Question - What is preventing a Manufacturer from building an authentic Ohm F again?

Is it the licensing?
Is it the technology?
Is it the patent?
Is it the cost of producing them correctly?
What is it?

It has been approximately 30 years since they first appeared with such great potential, but later proven to be flawed. Why hasn't someone taken today's computer based designing techniques and applied them to this speaker in an effort to make them a reality. IMHO, there would be a viable market for them in 2-channel as well as HT.

I would definitely put my name on the list of future owners if they weren't priced ridiculously. Heck, when I purchased them in 1974 I was just out of undergraduate preparing to go to graduate school. IOW, I was flat broke but had the foresight to scape enough coins together to purchase them. I now have a coin jar spilling over. LOL

Lngbruno, I believe that Ohm has claimed that their original technicians have all retired and that they could not find suitable replacements. German Physiks have done just what you have suggested. The German Physiks speaker line does deviate slightly fom the original Walsh description. Most are augmented with additinal woofer/sub-woofer(s) with added cross-overs. Some use mulitiple Walsh type drivers. Most would consider their offering on the expensive side.
All in all, I agree with you complelety. While I haven't actually heard them in decades and I don't trust my memory of those experiences, the Walsh drivers still look like the most promising design to date. I would imagine that they may even be more relevant today than yesteryear.

This type of design would have to be hand built using custom parts i.e. minimal off the shelf componentry. As such, it would be a relatively large economical undertaking for someone to attempt as compared to starting up a speaker company that uses off the shelf parts. On top of that, the market for such an item isn't all that big in the grander scheme of things, hence the lack of anyone jumping in with both feet.

Having said that, i can see this type of thing taking off if someone were to build "one off" products out of their garage. That is, IF they could achieve the type of results that we know this design to be capable of AND doing so with a high level of consistency. I have thought about this myself, but not too seriously. Sean
>

PS... Due to their radiation characteristics, these speakers are more difficult to set up. They also don't have a high WAF due to the placements required. This further limits their marketability.

If anyone has any doubts about what exactly constitutes Ohm's new version of a "Walsh" speaker, check out John Strohbeen's Patent #4440259. It is all spelled out. (Click on the images button to see the drawings)

Jamscience, now we can argue over...'Is John actually marketing what he had patented .

When I said, "the cans are not diffusion cans", what I meant is that the meshed cans are not employed to create a the widely dispersed sound that they are know for. That widely dispersed sound is still there with the cans removed.

And what I mean by acoustically transparent is...If I were to put a singing canary in one of those meshed cans, I personally, would not be able to distinguish a difference in sound of the canary, (Is the singing canary in or out of the can?). Similarly, when I am inside the house listening to birds that are outside through an open window, I cannot distinguish the difference in sound weather there is a screen on that window or not.

I did eventually affix the cans back over the drivers for shipping purposes, they would be more vulnerable to damage without them. The foam that lines the interior of the cans is there (I believe) to help keep out dust and potato chip crumbs etc. The foam is thin, in the area of 1/32" or 1/16".

I know what the Mk-2 driver looks like, because I can see it without removing the can with the use of an LED flashlight, and the picture Jamscience posted of the FRS-11 is reminiscent of the Mk-2 in looks. The sound absorbing material that is so unattractive is no longer visible; the driver is no longer ugly. The tweeter and it's mounting DO look quite different from the picture of the FRS-11. The tweeter and it's mounting is now much more attractive.

I do not know which earlier models are ugly, except for the one's I had, which were the 4XO's.