Ohm Acoustics Walsh F-5015 speakers

****Maybe OHM should retire the F name, like a baseball hall of famer's # is retired?***

Well, I don't agree with that. But I believe it would have been more "fitting" if the "F" designation would have been saved for a speaker that employed an "F" like Walsh driver, a speaker closer to the original in presentation and implementation. Why re-brand the 5000 with the "F" designation over a cabinet? Otherwise, any and every speaker that Ohm Speakers have produced since the "F" that employ the quasi Walsh technology (non omni variations with a tweeter) could also have the "F" designation. Why now and why with the 5000? It's about marketing.

Look, this ain't that big of a deal, not at all. But I and several others I have spoken to find the "F" designation for the 5000 to be misleading, if only benignly so. Like I say this is marketing, no sin in that.

I might add that I and others quickly figured out that the 5015 was employing the 5000 driver and not an unfettered "F" like driver when Ohm Speakers kept this new "F" under wraps. Because Strohbeen knows that an Ohm speaker, especially, that employed an improved, more efficient, F like Walsh driver would generate excitement with significant ripples throughout the entire audio community. If it worked, the new "F", like the original, would be an emblematic flagship for Ohm speakers and not merely a flagship.

****I have no desire to live with the limitations of the originals in this day and age despite the unique attributes of the originals.***

Absolutely! Indeed, I replaced my "Fs" almost two decades ago (although I still own them). And I'm sure that the 5015 is truly a great decision. The 5000 on down the line are also "unique" in that they employ variations of the Lincoln Walsh invention. And from what I have heard they are all exemplary performers.

Robert C. Lang

P.S. did you employ your orginal "Fs" up until you got the 5015 upgrade? Or did you have them in storage?

Please note that i posted picture of the mighty 15" woofer.

Well, i find these last posts extremely interesting. To answer the question: I have several pairs of speakers (you can see one in the background of one the the 15" pictures) and I use them all occasionally. The ohm f is the one however I prefer because its sound is unique and still give me the most pleasure on many recordings.

I'm still testing the F-5015 and have yet to make a definitive judgement about it, but I beleive that the F is not only there for marketing purposes. From what I heard so far, the frequency balance is near perfect ( I say near because nothing is perfect), like it was in the Fs. Moreover, the general
Impression of the sound and music is for me in the same family as the original Fs. The pleasure I find listening to the new Fs finds its source in the similar qualities : live like mids, supreme highs, yet not invading and incredibly smooth, bass frequencies which, like it was the case with the Fs, are always at their place, in perfect rhythm with the rest, in perfect rutic and tonal harmony.

Also, like it is the case with anyone listening to the old Fs for the first time, it takes time to adapt your ear to the new Fs sound because as it was the case with the old Fs, it is different fr anything you' be heated before, at least it is for me.

I'm still testing and will be looking at the mid bass when my amp makes it back home, against my other speakers (equipped with one of the best woofers in the world, the Scanspeak 10" paper woofer.

I will have to be very careful in my assessment because as I said the music presentation if the new Fs is so different, with, amongst other things, the 15" expanding the space between instrument and sounds so vastely, that I will have to live with it a while to make myself a definite idea.

Cheers!

PS: note that English is not my first language, so please try to read the ideas not the words.

Spacer and Mapman thank you so much for your enlightened responses and photos.

Since my following of Ohm speaker development has been spotty over recent years I have a couple of fundamental questions.

I believe (don't know for sure) the W5000/W4000 series are 2 way designs with the Walsh driver supplemented with a tweeter that kicks in at around 12,000 Hz. I suspect that the crossover is of a first order design although perhaps you can offer some clarification on that.

The W5015, I believe is a 3 way design with tweeter, Walsh driver, and 15 inch built in amplified sub woofer that crosses over at 80 Hz. Is the cabinet sealed, ported, or some other design?

Also, the inference seems to be that the 5015 is audibly smoother in the upper frequencies than the 5000/4000 series. This suggests that there have been improvements/changes over the 5000 driver which go beyond just the addition of that awesome subwoofer. Is it known what these changes may be? Or could it be that that the Walsh drive does not have to carry as heavy a workload (because of the subwoofer) in the 5015 that it peforms better.

Thanks.

Robert C. Lang

"I believe (don't know for sure) the W5000/W4000 series are 2 way designs with the Walsh driver supplemented with a tweeter that kicks in at around 12,000 Hz. I suspect that the crossover is of a first order design although perhaps you can offer some clarification on that."

Tweeter kicks in at ~ 7khz as I understand it. Not sure about crossover type.

"The W5015, I believe is a 3 way design with tweeter, Walsh driver, and 15 inch built in amplified sub woofer that crosses over at 80 Hz. Is the cabinet sealed, ported, or some other design? "

Yes, 3 way as described. Not sure about crossover point or controls ie similarly adjustable or not to an outboard sub or more fixed. Spacer might know or I would have to study the pics of teh controls he provided further to venture a guess.

I suspect the cabinet is sealed and not ported like other Walsh CLS designs, in that sub would relinquish benefits of a portm but not certain. Spacer would know. If not ported, that would be a first in the Walsh CLS line I believe and more like original OHM F.

"Also, the inference seems to be that the 5015 is audibly smoother in the upper frequencies than the 5000/4000 series. This suggests that there have been improvements/changes over the 5000 driver which go beyond just the addition of that awesome subwoofer. Is it known what these changes may be? Or could it be that that the Walsh drive does not have to carry as heavy a workload (because of the subwoofer) in the 5015 that it peforms better."

My understanding is it is a standard configuration 5000 driver used based on the descriptions I have read, but John Strohbeen might be the only one to know for sure. Also, I believe he has indicated it is currently a prototype, so details could change.

One of the benefits IMHO of the standard 2-way Walsh CLS driver (all generations) is that the Walsh driver does most of the work and CLS design seems to minimize demand on the tweeter. This helps account for the Walsh CLSs ability to go very loud seemingly with little or no compression (with enough power behind them), breakup or distortion, that I have observed both with originals from the 80's and the newer descendants.

Adding powered subs to any speaker otherwise pretty much always translates to further lowering the demand on the rest. German Physiks uses this approach with their DDD Walsh driver. I know other OHM Walsh owners (MartyKL for one)have expressed considerable success using external subs with other OHM Walsh speakers, especially to help enable the OHMs to perform well off of tube amplification.

I use an external powered M&K sub with my Walsh 2 series 3 OHMs running of 180w/ch SS Tube Audio Design 125 Hibachi monoblocks in my large open family room/kitchen area. The sub crossover frequency and level setting is minimal with the OHMS, compared to how set with my other monitor speakers I have used the sub with from time to time.

The sub definitely adds something, but I could probably live without it. THat room is fairly big but not huge and is my second system where I do not do as much critical listening.

Hi reclang

It is a scealed design. For the rest of your questions, I suggest you contact John via the Ohm site. I'm sure he will be able to answer them.