Ohm Walsh F Hope of Resurrection


Now I have F's with rotten surrounds, but rest look nice, perfect even. Cones, spiders look great. 

One surround is done, decimated.  Other is intact, perhaps replacement as is not identical. 

Perhaps I try replacing surround? 
Any new and improved surround options? Willing to replace/ get repaired more, if necessary.  

Cursory search doesn't reveal any drop in replacement.  Or, am I wrong? I see the Ohm return/upgrade to newer version options. 

Experienced and insider opinions sought. I'm not cheap, and I'll spend the money to obtain the exceptional if needed. So, what are the likely and less likely options   TIA
What is that one "clone", HHR? Need to check...  i heard it at a show years ago. 
douglas_schroeder
Different forms of detail with different genres. Omni wins in terms of scale, atomization of images, which can seem to be more info. It loses when it comes to image density and localization, which is a loss of info. 
Douglas, in the restoration, did they do anything to the 'putty' like stuff that's lining the inside surface of the titanium portion of the cone? I doubt they did that. If nothing was done, as it's difficult to do this, the sound will be audibly different from the original F.  
pch300, no, nothing was done to the "putty", as the drivers were in what I would all good shape in that regard. And, if something was done, it would be different from the original, anyway. Perhaps someone is using the original putty and can claim it's perfectly restored. If so, good for them. I believe moving into that aspect of a rebuild would have been a wild card, an unnecessary opening of a Pandora's box. I'm glad I had the wisdom to avoid that. 

I don't see how, apart from measurement or direct comparison of two sets, you can say, "...the sound will be audibly different from the original F," if the putty is not replaced. What data do you have to reach that conclusion? I would not accept perception without comparison for such a conclusion. If a person had two units with fundamentally different condition, build, then it would be logical to assume there to be potential for audibly different performance. But, I am not ready to accept uncritically the suggestion that aging has so altered the sound of the driver that it is audibly/distinctly different from the original, at least in this case where the putty is in quite good shape.

I would think the matters addressed, the spider and surround, to be monumentally more important to the character of the drivers, given that the "putty", frankly, it appears more to be like foam than putty. If it is putty, I suggest that the designer had more issues to resolve than I thought! When you have to put a putty on metal to tame it, you have some very serious resonance issues to contend with. Frankly, it's probably a miracle this driver worked halfway well at all, given the oddball materials and construction. 

Regardless, the speaker was languishing, and showing warts. I have resurrected it and transformed in a striking fashion its performance. So, in the end I care much less about whether the rebuild is true to original, and more about the absolute performance. Imo, I won big time on that front. The putty removal would have done little to address the pervasive mechanical issues of the foam and tighter airspace for movement of the driver. I'm not saying a re-putty could not engender better sound, but I'm content to conclude that these drivers with original putty in great condition are not significantly negatively impacted. 

Now, we'll see over time; if the putty begins to break off and fall into the speaker, turing the titanium portion into a dinner bell, well, then I didn't do so well! LOL  So, maybe I'll not blow them up but crack them up! We'll see, but in the meantime, I'm enjoying the refreshing changes.  :)


Image density? Not sure why I would want that.
Omnis do location very well when set up well. As well or even better than most. Not pinpoint imaging. Maybe that’s more of a image density thing?
I think I read on the Ohm website or somewhere that redoing the material inside the cone was one of the major barriers faced in properly restoring the Fs and a key reason why Ohm abandoned that.
The original F Walsh driver was a finely tuned device. Everything was there for a reason and understanding of how it worked exactly is not common. So it’s probably a safe assumption that most any modern restoration will sound different than original. I would bet on that. It’s likely a moot point what they sounded like originally but even these days those who actually heard them new still can’t seem to get that sound out of their head.

I worked at Tech Hifi back in the latter days of the Fs. Heard pretty much every model back then .... except Fs. The store I worked in sold mostly refurbed gear to college students and a pair of Fs never came our way. My loss.