Ohm Walsh F Hope of Resurrection

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.

mapman, well, you have a certain degree of image density, whether you want it or not. It's a parameter, a function of stereos and varies according to the design of the speakers. I would say that image density is inversely proportional to the image size, with panel, large line source and omni as champs in the latter. Conversely, I assert that resolution is a function of the system's electronics, not speakers alone. I can often make any given genre of speaker on hand outperform any other in terms of resolution. It's not hard to do. 

Image density is a particularly beautiful aspect of sound reproduction, and it happens with differing degrees dependent upon the tech used. The most image dense speakers, imo, are classic dynamics, and they also imo have the highest capacity to focus the center image. The most tightly imaging speakers, along with being the most coherent in terms of wave launch are full range. This is why they are so favored in terms of presenting what is considered exceptionally fine resolution of voice and acoustic instrument. Especially when hearing vocals and instruments produced from a point source, the image density, or solidity is an exceptionally pleasing thing! Some people think that if you explode the images, you are hearing more resolution, while others insist that by focusing the images you hear more resolution. It's all manipulation of the wave to give a sense of pleasure, and I see both perspectives have merit depending upon the goals of the listener. 

"Location" for omni speakers is far more nebulous than dynamic speakers. There is no clear fixing of the artists in relative location on the soundstage, but they float disembodied in the air. It's not that there is no center image, but that it is so widened as to be cartoonish as any point source instrument or voice. There is a pleasing distortion added through use of two 360 degree drivers, but this does not simulate well the tightness, the focus of especially the center image. To my ears the image is exploded and suspended in an unnatural way, relative to most live performances. That, I believe is one reason why most do not use omni speakers; they bring a lot of distortion to the "picture" in front. It's an intentional distortion, and has some very pleasing effects to it, including the immersive ness, but it's not imo accurate to what would meet the eyes. 

You mentioned the 3-D aspect of music as well, an it varies from the close field full range tightly captured soundstage to the, "it's in your head" effect of the headphone. That is another parameter on a spectrum, and in that respect no other speaker than omni has as much of that umbra of sound, short of headphones. But, it is a matter of trade offs in terms of the particular characteristics of the sound. I enjoy the variety of characteristics that each technology brings, and try to accept the enhancements with each as a beautiful form of reproducing music. Others have strong preferences as to what sounds right, and are content only with one expression of it. Thankfully, we have enough types of speakers to accommodate most visions of what is considered reality in stereo. 

I laugh about it now; many years ago I was a hard core panel fan to the point that I was trying to convince others that it was the correct wave form. Now, I think that was so stilted. The entire affair of stereos is about manipulation of the wave form and launch, and novelties capture our imaginations. I find it a wonderful, fascinating experience that even after all these years when I sit down to a different genre of speaker, there is an adaptation period, a time of what used to be about a week, but now is more like hours, where the fundamentally different character of the speaker seems "off" due to it's uniqueness. But, with time, the mind adapts, and soon the sound is striking the ears as normal and with emphasis on the strengths of the speaker's capabilities. 

With all this critical analysis of omni you might think I have some thing against them. Not not at all; if I did, I wouldn't have paid any attention to the Model F opportunity, or own the King Tower.   :)

I think you are spot on with your conclusion that it is best to not screw around with the inner coatings of the F in restoration, at least if the goal is to get close to the original. 
Heaven knows I don't have the chops of the original designer, but still, there had to be some significant challenges if putty was used. I think there was intent to get exotic with materials and solutions had to be invented. I don't know of too many companies today that intentionally merge fundamentally different materials in drivers, because it can harm the continuity of wave launch and cause problems with consistent tonality. It's really cool that HHR has kept the original vision alive, but if I'm correct, Ohm abandoned multi- material drivers and probably for superior coherence and specificity in application. 

One last thought to my above comments on wave launch. Omni speakers do have a more coherent wave launch than dynamic, line source, etc. However, what is not typically discussed is the potential deleterious effects of the room interaction. The 360 radiating pattern causes far more potential for destructive room interference with the primary launch. That cannot be ignored as well when discussing soundstage.  :)