The best "imaging" speakers?

Martykl,

I've often thought of the OHMs as the poor man's MBLs.

Do you think they are alike enough in terms of imaging and sound stage that this is a fair comparison, or might one who likes the unique presentation of MBLs have a reasonable chance of being satisfied with OHMs at a fraction of the cost?

Also keep in mind that in larger rooms the larger OHM Walsh models will produce a more dramatic (meaning "dynamic") presentation than the smaller ones (I've actually proven this to myself with my 100s and 5's in my larger room), so Walsh 300s or 5's at $5000-$6000 new might be a more valid comparison to MBLs assuming their natural habitat is in larger rooms. That's still only about 1/10th the cost of full range MBLs though it seems.

In smaller rooms, the dramatics of the smaller OHMs might be better suited to match larger MBLs in the same room size.

Map, (sorry all if this wanders a bit off thread).

I'd need to hear larger Ohms to answer the question. I talked to John about possibly switching to the Sat 5 for use with my subs, but even if I go that route, its gonna be a bit off in the future. Until that happens, 100s are the only Ohms I know. Very fine and - in some ways - I prefer them to any MBLs, but not for that quality of imaging/dynamics Dylanhenry dubbed "hyperrealism".

As to room matching, I would expect the MBL 101s to overwhelm my medium sized room with info below 150hz or so. I have always felt that the bass from this speaker is a bit "ripe", even in the 2 VERY large rooms I've heard them in. For this reason, I thought the little MBL 121 and a good sub might be a better choice, but I was a bit disappointed when I heard them. The same applies to the smaller MBL floorstanders (111 and 116, I believe) - they provide just a taste of the 101, but not the whole enchilada. So, its tough to speculate about bigger Ohms without a listen. One day (pretty) soon I may have a better basis for this comparison...

Marty

Marty,

I think the most apples/apples comparison would be the full range MBLs versus the 300 or 5 Ohms in a suitably large room with an appropriate good high current SS amp driving both.

A sat/sub OHM combo would be interesting to compare as well (I've never heard these either), but I suspect this would not be quite as apples/apples for purposes of judging "hyperrealism".

I like that term. It seems to fit the unique MBl listening experience well from what I have read and would envision. I don't know if it's a term I would attach to the OHms though. They have very good "realism" but I'm not sure I'd consider it "hyper" in magnitude as Dylanhenry describes the MBLs.

I find that term to be consistent with what I expect MBLs would sound like given their design and the unique nature of their dispersion pattern, even in comparison to Walsh drivers.

I really need to hear the big full range MBLs sometime.........

Any MBL dealers in the Washington/Baltimore metro area?

Maybe next time I get to NY I'll hunt them down. think I've seen a dealer advertised there. I Last time, I visited SOund By Singer. Nice stuff, but no MBLs that I remember.

If you would have asked me 6 months ago, I might have offered either the Gallo Reference 3s or Dunlavy SC-IVs that I owned. However, the Digital Phase AP-4s (little known brand made in Tennessee) outdid them both in terms of imaging so I would rate them at the top of my list. That is, possibly till this evening when the Ohm Walsh 5's I purchased arrived (hopefully undamaged) from UPS. The great thing about this hobby is there are so many choices. Maybe none of them 'perfect' but finding the speaker that brings you closest to your musical nirvana is a journey worth taking.

Tex,

I'd be interested in your assessment of the OHMs versus the Gallo's.

When I was shopping, I auditioned the Gallo's, which I liked but were then bested by the top of the line Quad stats for 4-5 times the cost.

I think the OHMs compete with the Quads and have better dynamics and impact than the QUADs for sure but at almost half the cost or less.