Ohm Speakers, thoughts?


I have long dismissed Ohm speakers as anything that could be competitive in todays state of the art. But of course I want to believe that this "old" American company still has some horsepower left to compete with asian built speakers built by people that take in less money in a week than my dog sitter takes in the couple hours it takes to let my dogs out to crap when I am away for a day :)? The reviews I have read here and there report incredible imaging but what about other aspects of the Ohm 5 II. Any thoughts?
nanderson
Mwr0707, do you recall if the soundstage of the F's was located primarily behind the speakers when listening straight on axis like the CLS series 3 drivers?

Maybe there is a difference here that you perceive as "more restrained" upper midrange?

With the Walsh 5 S3 drivers, the "perspective" adjustment, which corresponds mainly to midrange, I believe can be set to "close", "medium" or "far". The "far" setting seems to move the soundstage more back behind the speakers when listening dead on.

Unfortunately, I do not know which settings on the Walsh5 S3 match or come closest to matching the sound of the 300 or 200 drivers, which do not have adjustments.

You might want to pop John Strohbeen an email and get his input.
Mapman,

I remember the 3d nature of the F's soundstage, but I cannot recall the forward/back placement.

My challenge in the current room is that I cannot place seating any farther than 11 feet back from the front wall, because of a 1/3 back wall.
|=========TV=======|
|====X=========X===|
|==================|
|==================|
|====SOFASOFASOFA=|
|==========wallwallwall|
|==========wwwwwww|
|==========wwwwwww
|==================|
| Continues for 20ft|
| to kitchen |

I suppose I could turn the setup 90 degrees so that the speakers are in the leg of the 'L', (I guess, kind of like you have it), but I really enjoy the sound from way back in the kitchen.
Maybe a slight adjustment with speakers slightly closer together and maybe a touch farther out from the wall, if possible like below?

The "more restrained" upper midrange may just be the nature of the 200s timbre. having never heard Fs, its hard for me to say, but I think the S3 drivers natural upper midrange could be described that way compared to some speakers. I would say it is "more restrained" than my Dynaudio Contour 1.3 mk IIs for sure, but this is not a bad thing for me in my case.

You might try different interconnects perhaps to adjust this somewhat if desired. What source devices and interconnects are you using currently? I use several different types. OF these the MIT Terminator 2s I use off my CD would be my choice for this purpose compared to others I use (DNM Reson and HArmonic TEchnology Truth Link), which tend to also be more restrained.

=========TV========|
|==================|
|====X=======X=====|
|==================|
|==================|
|====SOFASOFASOFA=|
|==========wallwallwall|
|==========wwwwwww|
|==========wwwwwww
|==================|
MWr0707,

I used to sell many of Ohms non-Walsh dynamic models years ago, including the E, L, C2, and H. Unfortunately, the shop I worked in never got a pair of As or Fs so I never heard these.

I still have and enjoy my Ls that I've had now for ~ 30 years (see my system photo).

However, most of these models, including my Ls, had a similar tonal balance, which I believe was modeled after the F, if I recall correctly, which was the flagship model of the time.

Many of these models had high and low treble or midrange level adjustment switches on them, but in general, the sound of these speakers, which I remember well, and still experience with my Ls is significantly more forward in the upper midrange, compared to Ohms latest drivers (my Ls and f5s are in adjacent rooms for easy comparison).

The tonal balance/timber of the series 3 drivers are definitely more recessed and perhaps neutral sounding or perhaps laid back in this range compared to my Ls or my Dynaudio or Triangle monitors. The Triangles timbre probably matches the Ohm S3 drivers most closely of these three.

I use phono, CD and FM tuner sources mainly. I switched from the DNM REson interconnect to the MIT Terminator 2 with my Denon CD, which was the only source in my system which I felt needed a tweak in this area with the F5s. The results now are more to my liking, definitely a touch "brighter" and more forward but still smooth as silk.

I picked up my MIT terminator 2 interconnect on Ebay for less than $50.
Mapman,

Since the TV is about 56" wide, I can't move the speakers closer together without them standing in front of it. My CD/DVD source is the Oppo 981HD which has me considering an additional audio-only player like the Cambridge Audio 840C. My FM tuner is built-in to the Outlaw 990 and sounds similar to the oppo. Same with the music channels from the cable tv box. I'm using very cheap interconnects and the same 16 gauge lamp cord to the speakers I've had for 30 years.

I've using digital connections from the CD/DVD and the cable tv box.

I've always been a bit skeptical about the impact of cable changes, but your description has me thinking it might be worth checking out.

But it sounds like you are hearing close to what I am. Just as you described, I'd like to go a bit stronger in the upper midrange.