Walsh 5 vs Ohm F
rdm...@hookup.net
pair of the original Ohm Fs for 17 years(!) and have been very happy with
them. One of the drivers has failed and the factory has a trade-in offer by
which they will allow me to upgrade to Walsh 5s for half price (which is
still $3000US).
Unfortunately Ohm does not have any dealers in Canada so I can't even audition
them. (They do offer a 60 day trial period, but shipping 200 lbs back and
forth across the border is a major hassle!) I'd like to know if it's really
worth spending that kind of money on these speakers compared to what else
might be available in that price range.
Any insights would be appreciated!
...jim akister
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>Does anyone out there have a pair of Walsh 5s from Ohm Acoustics? I have had a
I have a pair of 4.?? from Ohm. These are supposed to be 5's
minus the adjustments. Much cheaper than the "real thing".
A half price on those would be a good deal.
In my listening, Ohm speakers RULE on choral music,
the most difficult material for a speaker to reproduce well.
A drawback is low power handling in the extreme low bass.
Never buy a speaker before hearing it yourself. But if you're already
hooked on Ohm's that may not be an option.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX c...@omen.COM 503-621-3406
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, GSZ and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-621-3746 FAX:-3735 CIS:70007,2304
ARL Arnie
>
> Does anyone out there have a pair of Walsh 5s from Ohm Acoustics? I have had a
> pair of the original Ohm Fs for 17 years(!) and have been very happy with
> them. One of the drivers has failed and the factory has a trade-in offer by
> which they will allow me to upgrade to Walsh 5s for half price (which is
> still $3000US).
Form my experience, the Ohm F and Walsh 5 speakers are similar yet
different creatures.
If you like the "cohesiveness" of the sound from your F's, and the well
spread soundstage, with the PERFECT horizontal distribution, and that
certain type of clarity (the kind of phase coherent "togetherness" of
planars), then the Walsh 5 will have all of these characteristics, and a
little better.
The addition of a "supertweeter" extends the high frequency capabilities.
(much needed, and it allows the main cone to not have to attempt 15Khz, but
it isn't a transparent transition from cone to tweeter, to my ears).
A change in the cone materials changes the tightness of the mid bass and
below. (I generally liked this, the bass seems tighter, mid bass more
defined).
The addition of an absorber towards to the outside rear of each speaker
makes them less room dependant. (don't know about this, less room
dependant, but less spacious as well).
Overall, if I had to choose between the F sound and the 5 sound, I guess
I'd take the 5 sound, not to mention the slight increase in efficiency, for
you really only need about 250-300 Watts to get the 5's really going!
Whereas 400-500 was just barely enough to perk up the F's. BTW: What were
you running the F's with?
It's a tough call - spending $3000 for speakers you haven't heard. But at
least these are speakers that are "upgrades" to the sound you have liked
for 17 years so far, and they certainly SEEM to be built to last 17 years
or more.
I will say this with no doubt whatsoever - If you got "used to", and grew
to enjoy the sound of the F's, you WILL get used to, and grow to enjoy the
5's, perhaps with a few changes in the rest of the system, to adjust for
the new sound.
Speakers are a bitch to change, especially when spending $3000, but Ohm
seems to have continued their tradition of producing a sound that I could
most certainly "live with".
I REALLY don't want to add this :-(, but you really should check out other
speakers at the $3000 mark, like Vandersteen 3's (Must spend many hours
auditioning), Thiels X.x at the $3k mark, and perhaps even Martin Logans.
All of these have a similar time-coherent sound of the 5's, but with
DRASTICALLY different tonal characteristics. These are all COMPLETELY
different musical instruments, IMO.
Good luck, for I do not envy your upcoming decision.
Later,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Arnie C.
Accutronics
Ann Arbor, MI
e-mail: arla...@aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rdm...@hookup.net
>From: arla...@aol.com (ARL Arnie)
>Subject: Re: Walsh 5 vs Ohm F
>Date: 6 Sep 1994 10:06:48 -0400
>Overall, if I had to choose between the F sound and the 5 sound, I guess
>I'd take the 5 sound, not to mention the slight increase in efficiency, for
>you really only need about 250-300 Watts to get the 5's really going!
>Whereas 400-500 was just barely enough to perk up the F's. BTW: What were
>you running the F's with?
I have been using a Carver M-400 (remember the cube amp?) for years (400 w/c
into 4 ohms) along with an absolutely ancient Marantz pre-amp. I had been
actually pretty happy with that for a long time, until a friend of mine
lent me his Krell KSA-100 power amp and Mark Levinson 10a pre-amp. Then I
suddenly found out just how much I liked the F's and resolved to upgrade
my electronics. It was shortly after I had to give back the Krell and M/L
that the F's crashed and burned (coincidence???).
>I REALLY don't want to add this :-(, but you really should check out other
>speakers at the $3000 mark, like Vandersteen 3's (Must spend many hours
>auditioning), Thiels X.x at the $3k mark, and perhaps even Martin Logans.
>All of these have a similar time-coherent sound of the 5's, but with
>DRASTICALLY different tonal characteristics. These are all COMPLETELY
>different musical instruments, IMO.
I've pretty much decided to go ahead with the audition of the 5's and once
they're here I intend to go around and listen to some Martin/Logans and the
Theil 3.6's which are roughly in the same price range. I've already listened
to the Vandersteens and I found the sound a little "closed in" compared to
what I've grown used to although otherwise very good indeed. I also intend to
upgrade my electronics to a Bryston 4B (unless I can find a used Krell
KSA-150 for about the same price) and Sonic Frontiers SFL-1 pre-amp.
Thanks very much for your input!!
Best Regards,
...jim
e-mail RDM...@hookup.net
Robert Barris
>I REALLY don't want to add this :-(, but you really should check out other
>speakers at the $3000 mark, like Vandersteen 3's (Must spend many hours
>auditioning), Thiels X.x at the $3k mark, and perhaps even Martin Logans.
>All of these have a similar time-coherent sound of the 5's, but with
>DRASTICALLY different tonal characteristics. These are all COMPLETELY
>different musical instruments, IMO.
Ditto. I loved my F's for about 18 years (!) until I heard a pair of IMF's. I
eventually bought an even better pair of IMF's and since they are so much more
efficient than the F's, when my Crown finally died I was able to buy a a much
less powerful but cleaner amp (Bryston 3B). As much as I loved the F's I would
never even consider going back. So get out there and listen - speaker
technology has really made some amazing leaps since you learned to love the
F's, and the same goes for the electronics. My IMF's were used, by the way,
the only option since the company went out of business some years ago. I paid
$1,000 for the pair and have not heard anything I like as well, and that
includes Vandersteens, Thiels. Haven't heard the Logans though.
--
Robert Barris 708-491-7228
School of Music email r...@nwu.edu
Northwestern University Compuserve 71141,1134
Evanston, IL 60208