Ohm Walsh 2000s vs Vandersteen 2Ces

Actually, Vandy's are more a stepped baffle, but not an open baffle and provide both time and phase coherency. I've owned both speakers (although different versions) and both have their strengths (and weaknesses). In short, the Ohms have a larger, more diffuse soundstage while the Vandy's Image better although through a narrower window. Just depends on what you value most. Best of luck.

"Vandy's are more a stepped baffle"

Tex, thanks for clarifying that. I realized after posting that "open baffle" may not be the most accurate description.

Vandersteen and OHM both focus on delivering coherent sound, and seem to be mentioned together fairly often, but the technical approaches are totally different.

FWIW the thing that makes the OHMs unique, even among omnidirectional speakers, is the OHM CLS (Coherent Line SOurce) version of a Walsh driver used. Google search and read up on Walsh/CLS driver/speaker for more insight there. Vandersteen has its own approach for phase and time coherency that is also very well documented.

I own Ohm 100s and have spent a lot of time with Vandy 2s of various generations (tho, admittedly, less time of late). Therefore, I can't speak to the specific models you inquired about, but I can offer two observations that IME apply to the "house sound" common to Vandy 2s and my Ohms.

1) Omni presentation is very distinctive. Based on my own experience, my guess is that this delta will probably overwhelm the other differences that you hear. If you love it, you'll probably prefer the Ohms. If you don't love it, you'll likely choose Vandy.

2) That said, the Ohms are decidedly leaner than Vandy tonally. There seems to be a pretty broad spectrum of opinion on what constitutes "neutrality" through the mid-bass around here, so - depending on where you fall in that spectrum - this one may be a deal breaker either way, as well.

BTW, I'd never characterize the Ohms as "veiled" relative to Vandy (nor would I argue the opposite). Both are pretty detailed, revealing speakers tho neither is as striking (to my ear, anyway) in that regard as the best I've heard.

Just MHO.

Marty

The newer Walsh 5000 is vastly superior to the classic Walsh 5 in several areas:
1. much more transparent and neutral. Midrange veil and slight colorations are gone.
2. the bass is much more taut and tuneful, superior to the somewhat tubby though cavernous bass of the classic 5's.

I had extended listening sessions with the Vandy 2ce at Verona and they were really dialled in and perfectly set up. In the sweet spot the sound is gloriously alive and you-are-there dimensional. They are not disimilar to the Walsh 5000s except the latter does it's magic over a wide sweet zone. Also, I had to dampen the sidewalls of my listening room to tame the midrange clutter of the Walsh 5000s. Now they energize the entire room and add a layer of acoustic not provided by the Vandies. Both are superb and I could live with either long term. They get the music right. Both need alot of clean power to sing. I am using the Wyred ST1000s and they are kick ass amps, ultra clean and refined.

Hi Mamboni.

How far are your 5000s from the sidewall?

Also, I'm curious what the room dimensions are?

Thanks.