Ohm Speakers, thoughts?

I could very well be wrong about this, but, it appears as though the DDD is a single driver and the Walsh is a compound(?) driver. If I'm correct, when run full range (20 Hz - 20 KHz) The German Physiks speaker system with its DDD driver and more traditional electronic crossover to subwoofers may have less cross-overs than the Ohm speakers system with its Walsh driver with it's mechanical cross-overs. The German Physiks cross-over may be in a less critical region? The Walsh's inherent cross-overs might still be more coherent as they cross-over to a more similar driver(s)? The German Physiks seem to be easier than the Walsh's to power? Any thoughts?

The Ohm versions of the Walsh drivers suffered from very poor assembly techniques. That is, the voice coil was not properly placed in relationship to the magnet / pole piece and the suspension ( spider, surrounds, etc...) were not properly slected. The end result is less than optimum performance in most every respect and drastically reduced efficiency / drastically increased compression.

This is why Bill Legall of Millersound referred to the Ohm A's & F's as being "broken from the factory". Addressing these problems basically means rebuilding the driver, but the results can be staggering to say the least.

I'm quite certain that the increased efficiency of the DDD stems from FAR greater attention to detail in the design & assembly of the driver. By limiting bandwidth of the driver, efficiency is also increased. If one were to read Walsh's original patent info, Walsh specifically stated that this design could be built to cover a VERY wide frequency spectrum. Only problem is that the wider the spectrum, the lower the efficiency.

Line: I'm lost as to what you're trying to say. Then again, i've not gotten much sleep in the last few days, so...

Unsound: The German Physiks speaker uses a passive crossover, not an electronic crossover. While the passive could be considered "electronic", that terminology is typically reserved for an "active" crossover. Don't know if that's what you meant, but thought this should be clarified for those that aren't familiar with the design. Sean
>

Sean, I stand corrected. Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks for clearing it up.

Amen, Sean!!!

Once you hear the Ohms rebuilt as they were intended to be implemented, the results are quite staggering. It sounds more than obvious, but the voice coil being outside the gap of the magnet just doesn't really fly. Like having the propeller of a boat outside of the water, but relying on the turbulence it creates in the air (but, NOT a fanboat) to somehow at least also exert enough influence on the water to get you moving.

Didn't know the A uses an 18" driver, and the F uses a 12" driver, but the discourse in this thread is teaching me a lot.

I'm incredibly lucky to be able to listen to Bill Legall's own pair of Walsh A's, and though I haven't heard them yet in a good system (I have to push him harder on this), or with the drivers tightened down (maybe I'll just do this myself while he's working on something...), I'm not sure they don't disqualify every other speaker in the "Best speaker you've ever heard" thread. Personally, I put them easily over Bill's pride and joy, the Infinity IRS in his living room.

Trelja: Now you know why i said what i did in a ( WAY ) earlier thread on Agon. That is, even though they most certainly have their flaws, i don't plan on giving up my F's anytime soon. I'm quite certain that mine don't perform to the level of Bill's "completely re-designed" Model A's, but none the less, many of the sonic attributes are still there to a lesser extent. Even with just that hint of performance to them, i knew that they were "special" from the very begining. Sean
>