Ohm Speakers, thoughts?

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.

Unsound, thank you for pointing out the German Physiks again. I guess you must own a pair of their speakers. So, I will ask if you ever had the Ohm F's and would share your thoughts on how they are similar or dissimilar in overall sound? I am interested in a true Walsh driver, which has no crossover and stands up to the riggers of day-to-day performance.

Sean, I do recall from an earlier thread/post about you contemplating the possibility of taking on this type of project/venture. It would be nice if one of the smaller DIY companies out there would take this on. I mean between you and Bill Legall, there is a wealth of knowledge that could be shared with the right party. Right? When I look around Audiogon, Audio Circle, Audio Asylum, and other sites, I see dozens of sole proprietor speaker builders. Heck, with China now very serious OEM electronic/speaker builders, one might subcontract them to build the drivers by hand and have the bases built here in the States, or visa versa.

Someone out there must know someone who skilled, talented, and would be curious /willing enough to take this challenge on.

What was the MSRP of the F’s back in the mid to late 70’s? I can’t recall because when I purchased mine pair it was part of a package deal which included an amp and preamp and I traded in a pair of EPI 201’s (another great speaker in its day).

Lngbruno, I have never owned Walsh or German Physiks speakers. If I could afford them the Huffs would certainly merit an audition.

To complicate this subject even further, IF I understand this link

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-61372/artiklar/article3.htm

correctly. DDD's generate (what I would call) surface wave ON the cone, like waves on the surface of water and the Ohm F's generate (what I would call) compression waves IN the cone, like two cans and a string. (If you don't know what I mean by two cans and a string, here is a link.

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-61372/artiklar/article3.htm

The DDD's and the F's generate sound in two distinctly different ways. I believe the DDD's do not have a spider or a surround for that very reason. What do you guys think?

Does anyone know if the DDD driver used by German Physiks has any built in mechanical cross-overs like the Walsh driver used by Ohm?