• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Ohm Walsh 4 Refoam Questions

The proof is in the listening. I opened up my big Mirage bipolars once and aside from a well braced cabinet they were nothing special inside. And my Walsh 3s have never needed a refoaming so I've never seen their insides---till now.

And I was just about to mention the Cornwalls cabinover...
 
one down, 3 to go

I know it's been a while, but if anyone wants here's the "inards" of the walsh 4's. I finished one of them last week, all seemed to go well untill I hooked up the asembled speaker to listen. At anything but low to moderate volume it would distort somthing fierce and then cut out. I figured the voice coil was shorted, so I stuffed it in a corner untill I got around to checking the other one. Well last night I finished one of a pair of AR 91's, and when I hooked it up, same thing! Turns out my test reciever is the problem, an old Kenwood 5150.

So for the last hour or two, I,ve been listening to one Ohm Walsh 4 one the left, and one AR 91 on the right, driven by a Carver tcm 35, and all is well!

I'll be doing the other one in a day or two, and give a proper listen. What I'm hearing so far is a great sounding speaker, very acurate and detailed, and Tight clean bass. I can't comment on imaging of course, but I think I'm going to be happy all around with these unique speakers!

Pics: 1 2 3 4

A couple of things:
First of all I would not recommend doing these if you haven't done at least a couple of normal refoams first, the fact that you can't lay them flat on the magnet makes it kind of tricky to work on. It's the first time I've shimmed a voice coil, since you can't get your fingers underneath the cone to feel for center. I might try the 30 hz tone meathod on the other one, but I still think it will be hard to glue the sorround to the cone, as the shims help keep the cone up, not just centered.

The standard 10" foams from Mat fit perfect.

And, once again, paying Ohm $250 to do this is NOT out of line, it is time consuming!
 
himm37; Hey thanks for pics and update on your refoam. I've wondered many times what was inside those cans. I've never done a refoam but I would imagine it would help if you could lay the units flat. I finally got around to sending my walsh cans back to Ohm Acoustics last week. I'm really hoping for wonderful things to happen and I can praise mine like everyone else praises theirs. Hopefully the verdict will be in soon.
 
I hope so too motor. While I won't say that these are THE speakers to make life pure bliss, they are to me a fantastic imaging and very good sounding speaker.
 
Is there any way to tell if they need refoaming without taking the can apart?

After seeing this thread I'm wondering whether all those "bargain" used Ohm Walshes on Ebay are such a bargain. :)
 
There is no way to see into the can really without taking the bottom cover off. If the bass is lacking they are due. If they bottom out, they are due. If there is any doubt they are probably due.

Having said all that, the only ones that people shy away from are the F models with that aluminumish cone.
 
Boy, one of these days I'm going to have to trip up north and hear what my old friends sound like now. :)

These Mac speakers I'm working on right now probably having no imaging to speak of, but hopefully they'll be able to redeem themselves with the supposedly flat 20 Hz.
 
The pictures are interesting. As shared earlier in the thread, the original Walsh F used a very complex (read: expensive) driver. Lincoln Walsh passed away before the speaker was commercially introduced. Later model Walsh's, including the 2 and 4, used a simpler driver, but I believe it still works on the same principle as the original F (though, I admit, it looks very similar to a conventional woofer). The high end was augmented with a conventional tweeter to provide better top end response and improved imaging.

The Walsh driver is patented, and the patent is interesting reading (as to how the driver works). However, it is still a dynamic driver (voice coil, cone, magnet, surround), so I wouldn't judge that it's a conventional driver rather than the Walsh design by looking at the pictures. The cone material (and the losses through it) are key. Try mounting a conventional woofer upside down in a sealed or vented box; don't believe you'll like the sound.

Ohm provides good (albeit expensive) service, but they're still servicing a product (rather, ALL of their products) since their introduction. How many speaker companies still do that? As for the foam rot, remember that these speakers are typically 20+ years old; not to be unexpected (the 4's were worse than some of the other models).

Finally, I've been very satisfied with the sound of my Walsh 2's (now the "Super 2's"), which use a similar set-up to the 4's (with smaller drivers). The imaging of these speakers, and their ability to image well as one moves off-axis, is very appealing, particularly relative to most conventional speakers (where the image "collapses" as one moves closer to the nearest speaker).
 
Ohm Driver

Doesn't look like Ohm is trying to hide the details of their driver designs, specifically what's inside the cans, given that they're showing the details on their website.
 

Attachments

  • CLSDbig.gif
    CLSDbig.gif
    88.9 KB · Views: 237
I finally sent my walsh 4's back to ohm for evaluation and trouble shooting. Mr. Strohbeen is being very helpful. Even though I'm past the warranty period he seems determined to rectify the problems I've had. I'm in hopes of owning a pair of walshes that I can brag about. Everyone else here loves their walshes; why the heck can't I? I'm in hopes once the problem is discovered and fixed I'll be a happy walsh 4 owner to.
 
Does anyone have or know where to find the manual on these (Walsh 4)? I WILL be finishing the other model 4 over the weekend, and would like to see what OHM recommends as far as placement and "aiming" and I'm curious as to what the switches on the base actually do.

Also, if you need a better pic/view of the process, let me know.


Thanks Again
 
Thanks for all the pics and such, my 300's are 13 years old so refoam/rebuild/upgrade is a concern for me someday.
 
That's an interesting diagram. What's strange to me, though, is that the original Walsh designs (A and F) were purely omni directional, and these newer ones don't just have directional tweeters, but even the conical main driver has an "acoustic attenuator" to reduce sound towards the rear, and a "transmission block" to further reduce transmission of soundwaves in certain directions. Doesn't all these things defeat the purpose of the original omni-directional design?
 
off topic here, but has Ohm changed the look of the new series 3 Walshes? I don't see pics on their site but the listed dimensions have them going back to a square but shorter design.
 
judgeschreber said:
That's an interesting diagram. What's strange to me, though, is that the original Walsh designs (A and F) were purely omni directional, and these newer ones don't just have directional tweeters, but even the conical main driver has an "acoustic attenuator" to reduce sound towards the rear, and a "transmission block" to further reduce transmission of soundwaves in certain directions. Doesn't all these things defeat the purpose of the original omni-directional design?
Click to expand...

Omni-directional output was ONE aspect of the original Walsh design. Unfortunately, in real world conditions (read: our homes), omni-directionality causes other problems (lack of good imaging due to phase cancellations, sound reflections, irregular frequency response, etc.). The later models are engineered to allow one to enjoy the benefits of the Walsh drivers in more "real world" conditions. Ohm still recommends that the speakers are located at least 3' away from the nearest reflecting surface / wall.

The original Walsh driver also eliminated the need for an electronic crossover, particularly in the critical low-to-mid frequency transition area, keeping the acoustic signal in-phase and eliminating "comb" effects when 2 drivers are operating in the same frequency range. This benefit is maintained even in the later models, as the crossover to the conventional tweeter is only at high frequencies.
 
motorstereo said:
I'm in hopes of owning a pair of walshes that I can brag about. Everyone else here loves their walshes; why the heck can't I? I'm in hopes once the problem is discovered and fixed I'll be a happy walsh 4 owner to.
Click to expand...

I hope you end up being a happy Ohm Walsh 4 owner too!



Retro
 
Thanks for the well wishes Retro. Right now Mr. Strohbeen has the cans and is having a pair of cabs made for them. He says he plans on listening to them over the weekend and getting back to me soon. He's been quite helpful and I'm anxious to know what exactly the problem with mine is. I'm hoping to have a big speaker sell off if they come back sounding the way all you lucky walsh 4 owners say they do. Cheer; Brian
 
Just a bump to let those interested know the linked pictures are back up. I thought thet were lost for good when I changed hosting companies, i found a copy on my hard drive!
 
rbneron said:
Doesn't look like Ohm is trying to hide the details of their driver designs, specifically what's inside the cans, given that they're showing the details on their website.
Click to expand...
So now we know Ohm's dirty little secret, conventional drivers in the place of Walsh drivers. Small wonder they advise against opening the cans. The diagram is a bit misleading in that the taper of the cone leads one to assume that it is a somewhat truncated version of the Walsh driver, which is obviously not the case. I guess if the speaker sounds good, who can argue? Nevertheless, I am disappointed that Ohm has so obviously economized on the components. They certainly haven't shirked at charging a premium for their product. I have opened up many European and Japanese brands and have never found evidence of the same kind of cost-cutting. Sign of the times, I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom