OHM Walsh on SS amp scores highest in all your areas for me.
Too many to list on tube amp depending on personal preferences. PSB Synchrony is the one I have heard that comes to mind. |
The right OHM Walsh model depends mostly on room size. Larger models use larger models of the OHM CLS Walsh driver, all of which are tuned to sound similar in different size rooms.
I think OHM is running a sale until the end of this month on the latest CLS drivers in refurbished older cabinets that provides extra exceptional value per dollar. |
You need not consider older OHMs from the 80s. Series 2, 3 or current X000 series are the ones to consider. They also will cost more. These are much more refined balanced and detailed in line with other better modern designs but no OHM Walshes including the originals possess the negative characteristics you seek to avoid. |
Unsound,
"Walsh" drivers are an operating principle, not a specific design.
The older OHMs as well as the newer "Walsh" line models all employ Walsh drivers of different designs. So do German Physiks and a few others these days as well.
Each has strengths and weaknesses and user preferences will vary accordingly as is always the case.
Of course I think you know all this already, so just a reminder....
If you can find a pair of original OHM Fs in assured good working order in the target price range, they would also likely fit the OPs bill. Hoever these tend to be delicate devices and service and support for these nowadays is sparse though available, for a price. |
Unsound,
OK, you can disagree but the fact is they ARE Walsh drivers, and pretty good sounding ones at that.
How much one design bends waves versus the others is another question and subject to debate. Walsh drivers, even the original (and flawed from a reliability perspective) OHM Walsh models do not rely solely on wave bending. That is also a documented fact, although its true as best I know that wave bending is a function unique to a Walsh driver
Walsh drivers produce wave bending more at higher frequencies so Walsh drivers that are designed to cover higher frequencies, like the DDDs will most likely tend to do more of that than the OHM Walshes, where the Walsh driver covers only up to 7-8 Khz or so by design.
All OHM Walsh style speakers I have ever heard exhibit the sonic qualities that the OP seeks in the stated price range, though to different extents. That's what matters for this thread, not how many waves are bent or not. That's a topic for another discussion perhaps.
Granted, wave bending is a relatively poorly understood topic in home speaker design. If it's "magic" one seeks, perhaps wave bending Walsh drivers fit the bill best in that sense. Although some may argue that its magical how the newer OHMs sound as good as they do. I'd be willing to label John Strohbeen (the designer) as a "magician", in that sense. |
The Fritz are monitors it appears. The Other two are more full range,if that matters.
The kind of amp used will make a difference between the two full range Merlin and OHMs.
I suspect the MErlins will shine with tube or lower power SS amps. The OHMs may do quite well with those, you'd have to try and see/hear, but require high current SS amps to achieve their potential.
Some report excellent results using a sub with smaller OHMs run off tube amplification.
Which will integrate into your room and listening location best is another consideration. The OHMs will provide a large sweet spot for listening. The others will likely have a smaller sweet spot.
From there, I think its mostly a matter of personal preferences that are harder to assess that will be the remaining determining factors. |
"It's been suggested to me that, all other things being equal, more efficient speakers are better speakers -- more micro detail..."
The problem with this is that all other things are not equal.
More efficient speakers may or may not be better and may or may not have more detail. It depends on many factors as I alluded to in the earlier post.
I'd start with assessing the amp and whether or not you are open to changing that also down the road if needed.
What 170w/ch into 8 ohm monoblocks, specifically? |
Just to be clear, I have nothing against high efficiency speakers. I just would not go under the notion that this alone determines the results. That depends on a lot of things.
I have no qualms with the performance of less efficient speakers categorically either.
Both require properly matched amplification to shine.
Achieving desired volume levels along with all the rest is quite achievable these days with modern amplifier technologies. Not a problem at all in most peoples homes.
Granted, to fill very large public venues effectively, high efficiency speakers are where its at. But most of us do not live and listen in arenas or even large auditoriums, so it is not an issue.
Efficiency alone means more volume per watt. Nothing more. |
"My amps are ss monoblocks, 170 watts/8 ohms"
What make/model specifically?
thanks. |
I have a pair of the TADs also.
I bought them for my second system as more of a SS equivalent of a tube amp.
I like them a lot. I have never used these with the OHMs but have used similar power SS amps with the OHMs in the past and the results were very good.
I think those are viable amps for all three speakers you mentioned. I'm interested to hear about your findings.
OHM is running a good sale through July 1, so keep that in mind if you think you are serious about giving them a try. |
Yes, omni's are different and often require some time for the ears to adjust if not used to it. That's one of the reasons OHM offers such an extended in-home trial period.
I've owned OHM Walsh speakers since 1981 and I found my ears did not fully "get" the newer models improved sound at first. It took some time to get fully tuned in. However, for many, once they do get "tuned in", there is no turning back to conventional designs for total satisfaction, for better or for worst.
I suspect the Merlins would be a very good and very safe match with the TAD gear. You would probably want the mods that make them more tube friendly, which I believe is an option.
I think audiogoner MartyKL owns MErlins, OHMs and the TAD amps, among others. It might be worth pinging him for his findings. |
I have never heard Silverlines but they have a good reputation. I wonder if the other monitors you are looking at are really any better? PRobably different sounding to some extent at a minimum. |
Pm,
Let us know how the Merlins work out with the TAD Hibachi 125 monoblocks.
I suspect this should be a match made in heaven.
I know the TADs are working out extremely well with my little and fairly easy to drive (like the Merlin with RC I suspect) Triangle monitors, which is all I need out of them currently but I suspect they are capable of a lot more with bigger, more full range monitors or floor standers.
The TADs are also working out very well with my Stax sr80 electret headphones, which are pretty demanding in regards to amplification, much more so than my Triangles and I suspect perhaps more so even than the MErlins. |
One thing I have observed with the TAD amps is that they seem to have a lot of zing and zest in the upper midrange and up into the higher frequencies, similar to what I have heard with what I would consider to be the better tube amps I have heard, like VAC for example, which are tube amps that I think more resemble good SS amps as well compared to some others.
The Triangle monitors tend to have these very revealing traits as well, but the TADs seem to bring it out more so than any prior amp I have used.
Many other more modestly priced tube amps I have heard are more "relaxed" or rounded and perhaps also less "detailed" in the upper frequencies.
LEt us know what you find once you get things set up. As I mentioned earlier, I suspect the results will be quite good indeed. It seems you have done a lot of good research into this so I suspect it should live up to expectations. |
