Ohm Speakers, thoughts?

Dale harder, you sound like a true affectionado of the Walsh sound as am I, at least the ones that I am familiar with!

Aren't the Ohm Walsh drivers, which radiate from the back of the driver mounted vertically as do Ohm Fs, truly omnidirectional even though Ohm choses by design to dampen the output to the rear?

I know all about the separate tweeter which is not omni and crossover and how this is a compromise on a "pure" Walsh implementation. However it is done, the soundstage does hold together in most any position relative to the speaker that I've observed. It may not be 100% pure Walsh but it is definitely much further away from a conventional box design than it is from a pure Walsh driver like the F's. It's a good design compromise as I see it that enables Ohm to anufacture and sell these Walsh speakers, with most of the benefit of a pure Walsh design, at a competitive price. To me that represents an innovation on the original Walsh design.

With so many variations of the typical box/dynamic speaker design out there, and little consensus on which is in fact best, surely a few variations on the innovative design principles put forth by Lincoln Walsh is not too radical!

Any way to hear a pair of Walsh TLS speakers on the east coast?

Having sold Ohm speakers years ago but having never actually heard Ohm Fs, I'd love to be able to a/b compare Ohm's current Walsh speakers against other designs like these or even German Physics or the MBL omnis. What difference would I hear in comparison to the Walsh 5 series 3?

Just to throw a curveball into this discussion - how about the Wolcott Omni-Directional speakers?

Wolcott supposedly makes some of the most impressive high-power tube amps available, I wonder if this extends to their speaker?

Dale,

I did understand your point. I found your treatise interesting.

My goal with these speakers was to achieve a certain sound.
If my goal had been to acquire something conforming to the original engineering design, I wouldn't have bothered with the trial.

When I considered Ohm's 30-year history of offering upgrades and support and the no-risk trial, there was little downside to hearing how the new and different design compared to the originals.

In spite of the obvious design differences between the current Walsh drivers and the original Lincoln Walsh design, I can tell you that the sound from the new series 3 drivers is close to the original F's. Not identical, but close. In some ways, better.

Kudos to you for pursuing your interest in the original design. I'm also curious how your drivers sound. I'll remain interested in how that effort progresses.

TEchnically, Ohm does refer to the drivers in their "Walsh" product line as "Coherent Line Source" (CLS) drivers on their web site, not as Walsh Drivers. My understanding is the CLS drivers incorporate design principles that were realized in Ohms early Walsh design speakers, the A and F. They are realized somewhat differently now with the CLS drivers, but with the same sonic design goals in mind.

One of the key new factors (requirements) driving the CLS design was cost effectiveness. The fact that Ohm is still in business after 30-40 years still selling innovative speaker designs and supporting all past models as well is truly a great testament to their approach.

This topic has been covered in depth in other threads on Audiogon that I've read. I believe someone even provided a link to a patent document relating to the CLS drivers.

To my way of thinking comparing old Ohms with Walsh drivers to new Ohms with pistonic drivers, is something akin to comparing dynamic planars to electostatics. They may look similar and they may share some dispersion qualites, but they are still very different.
If you enjoy them , that's what counts, but lets not suggest they are the same thing. It's ironic that other manufactures such as Dale and to a lesser degree Huff and some German Physiks are more like the original Walsh Ohms than Ohms present day Ohms.