Can NOLA's "Boxer" compete with big floorstanders?


I am probably going to have to sell a large floorstander speaker which is very good, and replace it with a smaller speaker. I have considered Totem Hawks and Forests which are too expensive even used; also, Ohm Acoustics M-1000; NOLA "Boxer"; the Sonist Recital 3. and Martin Logan ESL-Electro Motion hybrids.

I like the Hawks, Ohms, the NOLA "Boxer" and the Logans; I am sure there are other monitor or small floorstanders out there that can complete with many expensive floorstanders, but I do not have access to much speaker variety in the Hawaii high-end audio market.

Therefore, would appreciate input on all or even some of the above speakers, especially the NOLA, Martin Logans, and Totem Hawks.....the Ohm-Walsh Omni's are good and satisfying to listen to, but have only fair to moderate imaging and and average accuracy..... Thank you
sunnyjim
IF you are auditioning the OHMS, be sure to allow adequate break-in time. Giving them some volume with a suitably beefy SS amp will help expedite that. Setup relative to walls is also important for the best imaging and soundstage.

OHMs set up well will never sound like a box design in regards to imaging and soundstage in most rooms. Its a different kind of presentation that one will either take to or not. VEry competitive with the better big floorstanders I have heard though and I have no envy there.

MLs I have heard are quite different as well but in their own unique way as well.
I have owned the Totem Hawks. It is a good speaker but bass shy. I now use Nola's Contenders which take everything the Nola Boxer does and adds an extra dose of bass.

However, the selection of an appropriate speaker is interdependent on your amplifier and your room. Don't try and select a speaker in isolation
I want to thank everyone who has answer this thread.

To KIWI, the NOLA Contender is about $2000 more than Boxer. I only briefly heard the Contenders in a very small room, and so could not reach any conclusion about their performance. Unless the Boxer's bass response is really anemic, it seems like the better value, and choice for my application.
To MAPMAN, YES, you are right, I have read that break in time is long with the Ohms. Whatever speaker I choose, it will only be used to change up the sound from my speakers, BUT also as a "possible" replacement for the Acoustic Zen Adagios which are very heavy, large, and dominate the room. However, they are excellent speakers

I may have mentioned previously that my concern with Ohm speakers OR ANY OMNIDIRECTIONAL IS THAT THE SOUND seems/is GIMMICKY, that is, too large and wide to be realistic, and which sacrifice accuracy and transparency to create this effect of sound "just being in the room" The question could be asked...."but where in the room??"

A omnidirectional and holographic soundstage reminds me too much of the old quadraphonic effect of the early 1970's, which was carried forward by Bob Carver Holographic Generator pre-amp pf the 1980's,... and today's surround sound obsession. Obviously, a soundstage beyond the boundaries of a speaker does give more of the sense of being there, instead of being outside the musical performance. There is or "was" a pair of Ohm-Walsh M-1000 for sale. They look nice and are definitely small enough to move around or tuck in a corner when not in use. Thanks again. Jim
Sunny,

Chances are you are not going to take to the OHMs with teh perspective that room filling sound is "gimmicky". Only in relation to the traditional box design. How is sound coming out of a box not a gimmick? Is that how sound works in the real world?

Omni's definitely take some time to get used to because they are inherently different. Once you "get" them though, it can be hard to ever go back, which can be a scary thing.

Starting off with them as an alternate to a more conventional design is a great way to test the waters over time and see.