Ohm Speakers, thoughts?

I have long dismissed Ohm speakers as anything that could be competitive in todays state of the art. But of course I want to believe that this "old" American company still has some horsepower left to compete with asian built speakers built by people that take in less money in a week than my dog sitter takes in the couple hours it takes to let my dogs out to crap when I am away for a day :)? The reviews I have read here and there report incredible imaging but what about other aspects of the Ohm 5 II. Any thoughts?
Regarding Bill's Ohm A, it is indeed a very interesting and unique type of sound. Along with the very special "you are there" characteristics, it is a frustrating design with the most complex theory behind it I have ever seen. At first listen you are aware that something special is indeed happening to the sound...a more 360 boundary-less type of envelope, yet as wonderful as this quality is, on say a female vocal and guitar, it tends to not handle the complex music quite as well, or with as much reality. Bill's IRS is the much more univeral product. While it may lack the Walsh's seduction (I know its very alluring), I can bet the house that its dead accurate. If a new recording is purchased and one wants to really know how it sounds, the IRS is the one. Now I am sure countless mods have been performed since I last heard them a year ago,and judging from the above praise, a breakthrough must have occured. Interestingly, the speaker was spectacular when auditioned outdoors with no room interaction at all. Bill can attest to this. Bill is, of course, a very gifted and visionary engineer with the most unerringly correct (almost scary) intuition regarding audio on the planet. There is no question the Walsh driver in his hands may someday surpass his IRS, but, I am sure he will tell you he sleeps better at night knowing his IRS is there as an absolute reference...........Frank
Frap: I would tend to agree, but maybe from a different perspective. The Walsh makes music with both depth and ambience whereas other speakers may produce FAR greater "hi-fi resolution". As far as being immersed in sound, as one is at a concert or sitting nearfield of a bunch of acoustic musicians, i know which one is more realistic. This could be because you don't strictly have a left /right presentation with the Walsh's like you do with more conventional speakers.

Either way, i like the presentation of the Walsh design. I also like specific attributes of other more conventional designs. That's why i have several different systems, all quite different from one another. They all have their drawbacks to one extent or another. Some are just far more blatantly lacking in certain areas. Sean
Funny you mention "hi fi resolution", the greatest example of this being the ESS AMT HEIL 13 pound driver. To this day, it is beyond reproach from a hi fi standpoint. It does some things better than anything I have heard.It is hard to give up its special qualities once you hear them. Some music will never sound better than with this driver....yet some music sounds completely hi fi and wrong.
Isn't it ironic, Sean, that Heil and Walsh designs were of the most important variety, only to be executed without proper R&D to eliminate their errors.
The case for several systems is a good one, space permitting.
Here is a question for you Sean: Suppose the OHM A were reintroduced today with all of Millersound's R&D as a specially licenced product, and then marketed for a reasonable sum of money. Not 30K or the nonsensical current price schemes, but lets say $6500.00. Assuming respected ears on this site (like Trelja's above) were typical of the majority, could this technology/design be saved/ressurected? Vinh Vu are you listening
I have no doubt that the Walsh driver stomps all over Maggies, which are the best selling "audiophile approved" speaker in the world. As such, i'll use them as a point of reference.

By re-designing the Walsh motor structure and suspension, thereby making it more efficient and higher in nominal impedance, you make it easier to drive. As we all know, Maggie's aren't the easiest to drive and are also "finicky" when it comes to placement. In this regard, the "modernized" Walsh walks away from the Maggie.

On top of that, the Walsh's have TREMENDOUS bottom end, something that you couldn't pry out of a pair of Maggie's. In this regard, the Walsh RUNS away from the Maggie.

The Walsh's also have the deepest and widest dispursion of any driver / speaker system that im aware of, making for a FAR more "engulfing" musical experience. One can gain the sonic "wrap around" feeling that one normally only obtains from listening VERY nearfield, a presentation so "thick" that it feels like you're walking through it ( varies with recording ). Compare that to the presentation of the Maggies, which sounds "ambient" and "spacious" only when sitting in a limited area, and the Walsh once again wins.

Given the single driver point source with no crossover parts to soak up power or add their sonic signature, you don't have time or phase errors. The "one driver, direct drive" approach also produces excellent harmonic structure, prat and coherence, as many of the "full range" afficionado's will testify to. Maggies have a crossover, use multiple drivers and lack the warmth and bottom end required to have great "prat" ( in my opinion ).

To sum things up, it is a fabulous driver with GOBS of potential that absolutely kills the "audiophile reference". Would the average audiophile recognize this? My answer is NO. Most audiophiles are sheep and led by their noses via printed reviews and the herd mentality of the internet. Even if the glossy rags and internet "herd" were to jump on the bandwagon, it would be a short-lived ride till the "next best thing" comes along.

Most audiophiles are more concerned with dimunitive size in a speaker ( monitors ) OR MEGA sized boxes with a lot of drivers. Maggies are kind of a cross of these two i.e. large frontal section but very "petite" in terms of depth. On top of that, the Walsh's are so unconventional in appearance, operation and placement that many would be turned off.

As such, i think that it would become a niche product, just like those using SET's, single drivers, nearfield listening, etc... That's because the design approach and presentation wraps up several different aspects of what these people love and are after, all into one package. As we all know, those specific types of listeners are but a small part of the audiophile market, which is why i think it would be doomed to remain a product of interest to only a select few. Much like it is now, but on a slightly wider scale. Sean

PS... To be honest, i've never heard a Heil system that was worth listening to. Having said that, i'm quite certain that the installations and support componentry were to blame. This is probably most of the problem with those that had complaints about the Ohm's too, especially "way back when".

The technology behind the Heil driver, much like the Walsh, is pretty incredible as compared to more conventional designs. It's too bad we don't have any designers / engineers around today that are willing and capable of introducing and properly implimenting "ground breaking designs" like these. Instead, we keep getting re-hashed "monkee coffins", albeit better designed and better sounding "monkee coffins".