wualta said:
When you have time, I think several of us would be very interested to hear you describe in detail the difference(s) between the "pure" Walsh driver in the F and the simplified smaller driver in the 2 and 4.
The F definitely has a seamless and smooth quality that the newer two-way designs don't quite have. Not that the 2s and 4s, etc. don't sound smooth, but the Fs are SOOOO full, smooth and seamless that they stick out in comparison. There is nothing quite like a full range Walsh cone in an acoustic suspension cabinet! Perhaps it is the port contributing to the bass response that is responsible for the difference.
One of the most remarkable things about the Ohm F is that even at very low volumes the bass response is obviously there and quite satisfying. Some speakers sound thin unless you turn the volume up a bit. Not the F. The As have a similar seamless quality, but you have to turn them up a bit more to hear the bass. (This could be room differences, I am just calling it as I hear it.)
The higher end of the newer models (I once owned Walsh 200s and Fs concurrently) have crisper, more detailed highs than the F by virtue of the supertweeter. Not only do they sound crisper, but I do think the F sounded a teeny bit veiled compared to the Walsh 200 and noticeably veiled compared to the Ohm A. Maybe veiled is the wrong word... perhaps soft is more appropriate. It's kind of like the difference between the Grado Gold and Ortofon moving coil cartridges I have. That said, I love the Fs and it is my second favorite speaker after the Ohm A. The Fs have, for lack of a better word, "magic"- absolute total magic. I absolutely love them and if they were available new I'd buy a pair in a heartbeat, especially for a music-based system.
Final comment on sound- the newer models definitely have a wider stereo listening area than the omni models. You can hear precise localization far off axis, I have not been able to do that with my full-range Walshes, at least not in the rooms they are in.
What the As add to the Fs is sweetness of sound, clarity several magnitudes better, a wider tonal palette, and more detail and obviously more bass. They also have a "bigger" sound that can also be very small if circumstances demand it. For a demo I play the final part of
The Phanton of The Opera (Original London Cast) where the music box plays and Michael Crawford sings "Masquerade... paper faces on parade... masquerade... hide your face so the world will never find you." and when people hear the music box and MC's voice chime in you would not believe the astonishment on people's faces. I close my eyes and it sounds like they are in the room with you, it gives you goosebumps.
One comment about the Ohm speakers is they do not sound like speakers, they just sound like music, it doesn't sound artificial. I think the full range designs have more of that quality than the newer ones do. If the modern Walshes make other speakers "sound like speakers" the full-range designs do the same thing to the two way models- make them sound like speakers in comparison. Again, maybe it is that port, or that there are two drivers... who knows.
wualta said:
Strohbeen, or his ad writers, seems to think that the new crop of neo-Walsh drivers they're making now beat the F in sound quality. Aside from the possibility that this is a comparison of apples and oranges, specifically an apple with an unobstructed 360 degree radiation pattern versus an orange with a supertweeter and a carefully controlled semipanoramic pattern, we'd like to know if Ohm is making a virtue of necessity or whether we should petition someone to start making a Mk 2 version of the F.
The full-range Walsh is a warranty nightmare. Over 50% of Ohm F drivers ever produced had warranty claims because they were overdriven. Ohm could have denied the claims for abuse, but honored them for customer goodwill. This was a big drag on the company, and one reason they do not want to go back there. I think Ohm A warranty repairs went even higher than that. Only about 30 pairs of As were ever made, but from what I understand most of them, miraculously, are still working, though most have been back to the shop at least once. Over time I located about eleven other Ohm A owners. None of them will sell, damn it!
The Ohm F cost $4,000 a pair in 1982. 24 years later... I bet the cost would be closer to $12,000. How many people will buy them at that price? Especially given their limitations?
It is too bad no one has tackled creating a modern one-way Walsh using modern materials, construction methods, and computer aided design. I think this would be the ultimate! If I had Bill Gates money I would fund it myself.
Though the F has magic that other speakers lack... I haven't heard anything that is available new that can match it for overall "wow" factor and overall satisfying sound... I do think the modern Ohm designs like the Walsh 5 are more suited to home theater use by virtue of their dynamic range, near indestructability and crisper highs. I'm putting a home theater in a new house and rather than moving my Ohm Fs, I am getting a Walsh 5 based system. Once I have the 5s I can compare them to the F and the A.
It would be interesting to set up a pair of Walsh 5s and Ohm Fs in similar rooms, bring in a range of lay people who have no idea what the speakers are, play the same music through the speakers, and get everyone's impressions.
