What's the Deal with New Ohm Walsh's?

[sudon't]

I was reading up on some German Physiks speakers, which led me to Lincoln Walsh, which led me to Ohm Walsh, and then to the Ohm Walsh website. When I saw the prices I thought, "Hello, I can actually afford these...almost." Close enough to consider, anyway. I'm in the market for some new speakers. The German Physiks are certainly well beyond my reach.
But, further reading seems to indicate that they are no longer making a proper Walsh driver. What's up with that? Is the Ohm Walsh still a great speaker? Do their newer offerings share the sound characteristics of the old F and A? Better? Worse? Whatever your opinion, lay it on me.

 

[legalalien]

I own Ohm Walsh 3's, they technically are not Lincoln Walsh "A" or "F" drivers which were crossover less designs but they do (rather nicely) mimic the Walsh principles. They are basically an upside down "near full range" driver with a tweeter mounted free standing on top. The speaker is damped to reduce the rear sound wave giving a room filling sound that I prefer over other more conventional speakers. I doubt however they would compare to a properly functioning pair of A's or F's, they key word there is "properly". The F's were shipped with faulty suspensions which are very difficult to repair (but not impossible), I know Bill LeGall of Millersound will do them and I'm sure there are others. Dale Harder of HHR Exotic loudspeakers has taken the original Ohm F's and A's to a level of performance the originals only dreamed of but this level of performance doesn't come cheap, hope this helps...

 

[sudon't]

It does help, thanks! I wonder why they've stopped making the original design. Is it simply too costly, or is this considered an improvement?

 

[Pio1980]

Costly and difficult, yes. It is said that it took x watts to get them working well and x watts +1 watt to destroy them. The new ones are much easier to produce and accomedate but aren't really Walsh drivers.

 

[Donkey Karma]

Costly and difficult, yes. It is said that it took x watts to get them working well and x watts +1 watt to destroy them. The new ones are much easier to produce and accomedate but aren't really Walsh drivers.

Yep. EXPENSIVE, FRAGILE and many consider rarity of the approach aside they are sonically lacking.

While the sound field is truly impressive some think they lack warmth and depth. I will be in front of a pair again tomorrow. A close friend has a pair of the "F's" I believe. He spent a sh#t pile of beans to get a rebuild on the drivers. Unfortunately they do not make the rotation that often. They do not stand up against his 3.6's and ET LFT8's. Without the rebuild I believe (been a long time since I did the research) the drivers have the life expectancy of a house fly.

IMHumbleO they are certainly unique and do 80% of the sonic spectrum extremely well. On the audio scales of justice the $$ vs performance isn't there to my ears. You need to love them for what they are to justify the commitment. I certainly understand those that do.

 

[nfafan]

Can't speak to original Walsh speakers or the various versions of same, but my Ohm Walsh 2's of unknown vintage are awesome, these would be the last pair of speakers I'd ever consider getting rid of. If you can get a chance to hear a pair, do not pass up the opportunity. JM2cents.

 

[sudon't]

If you can get a chance to hear a pair, do not pass up the opportunity. JM2cents.

I'd love to, of course, but I live in a bit of a backwater, (only one HiFi store!). I'm contemplating ordering a pair. They have a very reasonable return policy.

...do 80% of the sonic spectrum extremely well.

The newer ones come with a conventional woofer to handle the low end. Was that the case with the old ones, or were they trying to do full range with one driver? The thing that surprises me is that they also use a conventional tweeter. I would've thought that would be the thing this type of driver excelled at. Of course, I'm not exactly clear what they're doing with their Walsh-ish driver now.

 

[Pio1980]

The old Ohm 'F' was full range omni single driver.
One major problem was suspension sag from the weight of the multi-ply active dispersion cone.

 

[jdmccall]

I had a chance to buy a minty pair of F's years ago. It's probably a good thing for me I passed, but I've always been intrigued by the design. I'd love to hear the new version even though it's not as pure a design as the originals. I just like the concept of a crossover-less, full-range omni. Kind of an omni mic in reverse.

 

[Donkey Karma]

I'd love to, of course, but I live in a bit of a backwater, (only one HiFi store!). I'm contemplating ordering a pair. They have a very reasonable return policy.

The newer ones come with a conventional woofer to handle the low end. Was that the case with the old ones, or were they trying to do full range with one driver? The thing that surprises me is that they also use a conventional tweeter. I would've thought that would be the thing this type of driver excelled at. Of course, I'm not exactly clear what they're doing with their Walsh-ish driver now.

Their marketing was a hoax and misleading for the older 2's and 4's.

They used a hand drawn exploded view of their drivers. They were drawn to appear like true walsh drivers. The cans were sealed shut to help prevent "seeing behind the curtain". They worded their marketing to make it sound like walsh drivers were in the cans.

Farse. I do not respect that tatic. I had them apart and repaired them myself. Downward firing cone driver and 1" dome tweet. Standard fair all around besides placement of drivers and the xxovers.

 

[mars_volta]

I own F, 4 and 2 models. The 4s are my favorite by far. The newer design meets the original Walsh single driver requirements as a coherent line source, they just go about it in a more practical way. The marketing was accurate. Honestly, the Fs are hard to place, hard to power, sometimes sound 'thin and phasey' and really don't stand a chance against even the walsh 4s. They do have a unique sound, good bass and are just plain cool vintage speakers.

I use the 4s and 2s in a 5.1 setup. I have the velodyne sub nearly off.

 

[frommerstop]

I own F, 4 and 2 models. The 4s are my favorite by far. The newer design meets the original Walsh single driver requirements as a coherent line source, they just go about it in a more practical way. The marketing was accurate. Honestly, the Fs are hard to place, hard to power, sometimes sound 'thin and phasey' and really don't stand a chance against even the walsh 4s. They do have a unique sound, good bass and are just plain cool vintage speakers.

I use the 4s and 2s in a 5.1 setup. I have the velodyne sub nearly off.

I couldn't agree more!
I've had Fs, and later 2s, 3s & 4s... even Sound Cylinders & 1s for a bit. I'd take Walsh 4s (or 5s) over the original As & Fs in a heartbeat. MUCH easier to drive, place & maintain than the earlier full range models with arguably smoother in room response as well. The original models were remarkable speakers, but they were a real PITA to get right in a normal listening room, and as soon as you drove them loudly enough to really sing, they were likely to melt a voice coil. A classic case of needing a lot of power to sing, but not being able to handle a lot of power... a bit like the original Quad ESLs.

One of the coolest ideas for a speaker, and they looked the part as well, but IMO the original Walsh models were more trouble than they're worth. The later Ohm Walsh "number series" speakers bring that idea down to earth, while preserving the best of the Walsh sonic character.

 

[nfafan]

They used a hand drawn exploded view of their drivers. They were drawn to appear like true walsh drivers. The cans were sealed shut to help prevent "seeing behind the curtain". They worded their marketing to make it sound like walsh drivers were in the cans.

Farse. I do not respect that tatic. I had them apart and repaired them myself. Downward firing cone driver and 1" dome tweet. Standard fair all around besides placement of drivers and the xxovers.

True that. The old "exploded view" isn't a match from what I have seen of photos of open "cans" on Walsh 2s. But however they do it with smoke an mirrors, they do it right.

And to the OP - the good old "stereo stores" of yesteryear are hard to find pretty much anywhere.

 

[Donkey Karma]

I think I may be able to find pics of the unveiled guts.

I agree they did sound quite nice!

 

[sealy]

The newer Ohm Walsh speakers are not Walsh speakers at all. They are conventional drivers. As a former Ohm F owner that featured a single transducer designed by Lincoln Walsh, I feel Ohm Acoustics should drop the "Walsh" moniker and simply call them Ohm speakers. Those who have not owned an F or the more expensive Model A cannot possibly conceive the sound that comes out of them. It is so realistic that one feels he is at a real performance. Somehow, Ohm has managed to mimic the sound of the original Walsh radiators to a reasonable degree. But they are not Walsh speakers. There is a company called HHR exotic speakers that manufactures exact replicas of the Ohm F and A. According to owners they sound and act identically to the real thing. From the reviews I've heard they are expensive but are worth every penny.

 

[zastin17]

The newer Ohm Walsh speakers are not Walsh speakers at all. They are conventional drivers. As a former Ohm F owner that featured a single transducer designed by Lincoln Walsh, I feel Ohm Acoustics should drop the "Walsh" moniker and simply call them Ohm speakers. Those who have not owned an F or the more expensive Model A cannot possibly conceive the sound that comes out of them. It is so realistic that one feels he is at a real performance. Somehow, Ohm has managed to mimic the sound of the original Walsh radiators to a reasonable degree. But they are not Walsh speakers. There is a company called HHR exotic speakers that manufactures exact replicas of the Ohm F and A. According to owners they sound and act identically to the real thing. From the reviews I've heard they are expensive but are worth every penny.

I disagree, I've heared Fs that where fully rebuilt, they can be thin at times. Very good. But the new Ohm Walshes are better in pretty mutch every regard too my ears. They sound mutch fuller, and have almost no audable error in sound. The custom angled woofer cones omnidirectional soundstage is just the cherry on top.

 

[bebopdeluxe]

I disagree, I've heared Fs that where fully rebuilt, they can be thin at times. Very good. But the new Ohm Walshes are better in pretty mutch every regard too my ears. They sound mutch fuller, and have almost no audable error in sound. The custom angled woofer cones omnidirectional soundstage is just the cherry on top.

My guess is you haven't heard F's that were rebuilt by Bill LeGall from MillerSound. I have many adjectives that I would use to describe their sound. "Thin" certainly isn't one of them.

 

[zastin17]

The newer Ohm Walsh speakers are not Walsh speakers at all. They are conventional drivers. As a former Ohm F owner that featured a single transducer designed by Lincoln Walsh, I feel Ohm Acoustics should drop the "Walsh" moniker and simply call them Ohm speakers. Those who have not owned an F or the more expensive Model A cannot possibly conceive the sound that comes out of them. It is so realistic that one feels he is at a real performance. Somehow, Ohm has managed to mimic the sound of the original Walsh radiators to a reasonable degree. But they are not Walsh speakers. There is a company called HHR exotic speakers that manufactures exact replicas of the Ohm F and A. According to owners they sound and act identically to the real thing. From the reviews I've heard they are expensive but are worth every penny.

They absolutely are Walsh Drivers . CLS in Walsh Configuration. These Cones are not normal piston drivers. And they absolutely do not operate as such.

And good luck with trying too dope a normal speaker driver. Theirs far more to it than that.

Ide take Ohms brand New Models over an F anyday!! 20Hz flat, and some of the most coherent, flawless, sound their is available on the audio market.

Not sluggish like the Fs, amazing for Acoustics though.

Newer Ohms will play absolutely all Music at incredibly high power levels without flinching a beat.

Some of the very finest Dynamic midrange out their aswell. Bass all the way into the lower Highs are absolutely impeccable. Theirs no room for improvement when the sound is propagating this way.

Normaly nuances and unbelievable coherency heared only on Planar magnetic panels or Ribbons.

Far beyond the ability of the Fs. Yes!! And also do not tear themselves apart when you play too loud. Haha. Yes, I know theirs been improvements with restorations from Dale. But you go into the Ohm Walsh group. And see what people really think for yourself.

Newer Ohms will compete with just about anything out their. My only other alternative would be MBL. Heared them at Portland Expo and shat myself.

But i'm not a Multi Millionare, sooo

 

[jdmccall]

My only other alternative would be MBL. Heared them at Portland Expo and shat myself.

The day is young but that's the funniest thing I've read so far. Thanks!

 

[UncleAng]

Of course, I'm not exactly clear what they're doing with their Walsh-ish driver now.

The original "A" and "F" model were huge, expensive, required tons of power and fragile. OHM needed a smaller, less fragile, less power hungry and, most of all, less costly solution. The OHM Walsh 2 was the answer to all those questions and remains the best selling OHM model ever All Walshes since then are based on that model with, for the most part, minor variations.

The main driver, regardless of size, crosses over to a super tweeter at 8 kHz @ 6 db per octave; they also have a passive sub bass activator which kicks in @ 60 Hz and below.
8&1/2 octaves out of 10 are from one driver. BTW, they sound great.