Ohm Walsh 5-S3

I would like to know what you owners think or if you have ever heard them? I have electrostats (Final Sound 1000i) now but I can say the only think that I think is better are the MBL's.
Don't be shy, go ahead and tell us about the 1000is. I have read they are among the best. The stands don't look like a solid foundation if you have carpet floors. Are spikes a possibility?

As much as I like Ohms, I don't think they compare to your Finals.

What can I say about the 1000i's? Seriously, in my configuration, the ONLY thing that I've heard "better" are the MBL 101E. I am a looong time Martin Logan owner who sold his Summits after 6 months. I was very disappointed. Not what I thought they were going to be....I was happier with my Questz and my CLSIIz's to be honest. The Finals are the most transpartent, acurate and detailed I've heard. Just awesome in my setup. You can use spikes if you wanted but I don't on my carpet floors as they are very sturdy. If you want to know more email me and I can help you.
I have owned the Ohm Walsh 5-S3 for over a year now. One of the original drivers failed and both drivers have now been replaced with what amounts to a prototype for the S4. Sound is at least as good or better in all respects as the original and the speakers are at least 5 dB more efficient, allowing them to be used to great effect with electronics like the typical 100 wpc home theater receivers. They no longer require big power for high SPL, in other words.

The sound is very coherent, in the sense of lack of audible crossover and time alignment. The tonal balance is very pleasing except that in my main audio room there is a peak around 300 Hz which I EQ out with my TacT RCS 2.2XP. In another room this peak is not really apparent. The Ohms are great speakers for both two-channel audio and home theater use; lately I've been using them in my theater.

The Ohms will always sound spatially big, generously warm in tonal balance, and relaxed in a comfortable old shoe way that is most endearing. They also sound coherent in the sense that many so-called time-aligned speakers promise but rarely deliver. A mighty fine package for the money.

But as far as hearing what is actually on the recording, all wide dispersion speakers like the Ohms (and MBLs) will introduce more listening room "second venue" effects than narrower dispersion speakers like planar or electrostatic dipoles. The Ohms' very pleasing spatiality has a generic quality that is part of their inherently high level of interaction with your listening room surfaces. You can reduce this interaction with a lot of absorbing room treatments and by listening in the near field, but it is always there to a greater extent than other speakers similarly situated.

In my main audio system I have lately been using speakers at the polar opposite end of the spectrum, speakers which ignore the listening room to a maximum degree. Some recordings sound weird with such speakers, but such speakers maximally differentiate recording quality and good recordings are amazing and great recordings are jaw-droppingly spellbinding. I have been using Gradient 1.3s and just received my Gradient Helsinki 1.5s. Add a pair of good subwoofers (such as my JL Audio Fathom f113s), EQ to taste with the TacT, and you are transported to the recording venue in ways most other speakers cannot approach.
In a nutshell, I love my F-5's (Walsh 5 Series 3 drivers in modified and refurbished Ohm F cabinets).

For the price I payed with trade-in, there is nothing else to compare.

They replaced a pair of Magnepan MG1.3's that I loved for 20 years. The Maggies shortcomings were limited dynamics, difficulty in optimal placement in my room and limited low end extension.

In general, I think the Ohms acclimate themselves well to lovers of the electrostat sound. I can compare them favorably to the top of the line Quads I've heard, but I've never heard Final Sound. Nor MBLs.

Tmallin summarizes some of the key characteristics of the Walsh 5's well, in particular how interaction with the room is a key factor in the resulting sound.

I debated adding a sub to my Dynaudio Contour 1.3 mkIIs to achieve the complete sound I was looking for, but opted to add the Ohms separately instead.

I doubt there is anyone who would even think about having to add a sub with the Walsh 5s.

The near-full range ported omni-driver does an exceptional job with the low end in terms of finesse and extension, combining that with electrostat-like rendering in the midrange and above, and without the limited "sweet spot". A very hard act to follow indeed, if not impossible at the price I payed with trade-in!

I have never been a huge fan of the Martin Logan sound, at least from what I've heard. The separate dynamic bass drivers never seem to mesh in cleanly with the electrostat panels, at least to my ears.

With the Ohm CLS driver, the single driver handles much of what you hear in a very coherent manner, augmented cleanly by the port on the low end and the separate "super tweeter" at the other
Hi Jtwrace -- I've had the Walsh 5 Mk IIIs for a year and have been very, very pleased. My last speakers were the Vandy 3A Sigs. which are a very nice speaker, but the Ohms took me a few big steps further up the audio ladder.

What surprised me most initially was how similar they sounded to the Vandys. However, they were particularly improved in mid range definition and overall coherency is probably about the best you'll ever hear. In my room, the general presentation and specific soundstage characteristics were, much to my amazement, not all that different than the Vandys. You have to remember that even though the primary driver radiates 360, there are plates that partially attenuate the sound to the back and outside of each speaker. So, you're not spraying equal volume levels in every direction. The contour switches on the Ohms are not to be dismissed as they can be very helpful.

I do use a sub (ACI Titan) which I've been able to integrate quite well thanks to the ACI's multiple controls and the great help of a Copland DRC205 Room Correction System. I should take the time to write a review of the Copland as I find it a terrific help and also a great education in what happens to sound in your listening room. A relatively slight 2 db variance in the midrange, at your listening position, can quite dramatically change a vocalists voice for the worse. Back to the sub -- the Ohm's have good, well defined bass to the low 30s, fairly similar to the Vandys. But, years ago, I realized that most recording have at least some information below the low thirties and unless I had a high quality sub or monster floor standers I would never have that vital foundation under the rest of the music. Good integration can be time consuming, but the ACI and the Copland shortened the time considerably and the results please me no end.

The Ohms are very easy to like and, I believe, they have a four month trial period. My advice is to check them out -- you don't have much to lose.

Best regards,
Brian Elliott