Are the new Ohm Walsh speakers Audiophile quality?

Well KEF literature on the product or Uni-Q certainly makes little or no explicit claim regarding coherency and the crossover is not simple. But the Uni-q is essentially a point source driver so there is that.

I guess its reviews where I’ve read reviewers refer to the sound as coherent and on the grand scale of things overall I would agree.

Pretty sure I’ve read Ohm uses a very simple crossover. You might have to ask them to find out for sure. No doubt the product is advertised as coherent and that is how it sounds, and that unique design is what makes them the hardest to replace for me of any I have owned.  

I suppose technically a port works more away from absolute perfect coherence than towards it but do those low frequencies matter as much when it comes to a coherent sound? To some extent I would think so. Then again the KEFs come with port plugs so you can easily take those rear ports mostly out of the equation if preferred.

All design aspects contribute to the end result. Some do that better than others when it comes to top to bottom overall coherency.

I think I know a coherent speaker when I hear it...but who knows? I’m confident some are way more coherent sounding overall than others. I do know I tend to prefer those that clearly have some strong elements of overall coherency on their side as opposed to the opposite.

I had Triangle Titus monitors for years that I seem to recall used a simple 1st order crossover and were advertised as coherent overall. I would agree. HEy but those were FRONT ported!


I had Dynaudio Contour monitors the same time as the Triangles. Very nice in many ways of their own but not particularly coherent sounding in any special way at least to my ears.

 ^Your points regarding ports are well taken. Yes, I believe that Ohm uses a simple 1st order cross-over to the tweeter which is something of a prerequisite, but there’s more to it.
 The coincident drivers certainly have some advantages, especially for driver integration at the listening position. With the right profile they can also mitigate lobing effects.
 Coherence can be confirmed with an appropriate step response.

I owned a set of the original Ohm Fs and now have a set of Ohm 1000s (though with a recent move that has a larger listening room, I may upgrade to one of the larger models.)

A couple of observations.  The inside of the cans that cover the down-facing driver of the new Ohms is intentionally padded at certain spots to reduce output to the outside rear. This makes them easier to place in a room. They would be true omnis but for that -- this feature improves their performance in a typical home environment.  Also, the tweeter crossover is quite high -- I believe 8KHz or 9 KHz. This is well above the fundementals of most, if not all, acoustic instruments, so you are dealing in a frequency range where moving your head just a few inches at the listening position would affect any theoretical coherency of any pair of stereo speakers.

In summary, I really enjoyed my original Fs and equally enjoy the current models. Both offer superb, lifelike sound with good recordings, but the new models are a lot easier to setup, drive and enjoy than the originals.

No.
The original Ohm Fs were enjoyable, given plenty of power. Owned a pair for 3 years.
The Ohms for the last 20+ years sound muddy, diffuse, two-dimensional, and bland.
LOW mid-fi at BEST.

Just shows that opinions are a dime a dozen in this hobby. I also owned a set of the original Ohm Fs in the mid-1970s. While I enjoyed them immensely, I find my current Ohm 1000s equally enjoyable (and easier to deal with.)  

The key is for each person to find what works for them.