The best "imaging" speakers?

Coherent is a good thing. 

Triangles are the best imaging speaks I've heard in a conventional box design. I've heard them totally disappear in systems where no other speakers did.

Magicos were impressive also in this regard when I heard them but they are PRICEY.

Omnis like OHMs or MBL can be very good also, but their imaging is totally different from conventional box designs IMHO. Some will take to it and be hooked and never go back....some just won't get it.

Audiophiles want it all and we want it now!

Dylanhenry,

Have you ever heard OHm Walsh speakers?

I'm wondering how they compare to MBLs in regards to soundstage and imaging.

I own OHMs but have never heard MBLs.

Fullrange OHMs are a fraction of the cost of full range MBLs though.

Martykl,

I've often thought of the OHMs as the poor man's MBLs.

Do you think they are alike enough in terms of imaging and sound stage that this is a fair comparison, or might one who likes the unique presentation of MBLs have a reasonable chance of being satisfied with OHMs at a fraction of the cost?

Also keep in mind that in larger rooms the larger OHM Walsh models will produce a more dramatic (meaning "dynamic") presentation than the smaller ones (I've actually proven this to myself with my 100s and 5's in my larger room), so Walsh 300s or 5's at $5000-$6000 new might be a more valid comparison to MBLs assuming their natural habitat is in larger rooms. That's still only about 1/10th the cost of full range MBLs though it seems.

In smaller rooms, the dramatics of the smaller OHMs might be better suited to match larger MBLs in the same room size.

Marty,

I think the most apples/apples comparison would be the full range MBLs versus the 300 or 5 Ohms in a suitably large room with an appropriate good high current SS amp driving both.

A sat/sub OHM combo would be interesting to compare as well (I've never heard these either), but I suspect this would not be quite as apples/apples for purposes of judging "hyperrealism".

I like that term. It seems to fit the unique MBl listening experience well from what I have read and would envision. I don't know if it's a term I would attach to the OHms though. They have very good "realism" but I'm not sure I'd consider it "hyper" in magnitude as Dylanhenry describes the MBLs.

I find that term to be consistent with what I expect MBLs would sound like given their design and the unique nature of their dispersion pattern, even in comparison to Walsh drivers.

I really need to hear the big full range MBLs sometime.........

Any MBL dealers in the Washington/Baltimore metro area?

Maybe next time I get to NY I'll hunt them down. think I've seen a dealer advertised there. I Last time, I visited SOund By Singer. Nice stuff, but no MBLs that I remember.

Tex,

I'd be interested in your assessment of the OHMs versus the Gallo's.

When I was shopping, I auditioned the Gallo's, which I liked but were then bested by the top of the line Quad stats for 4-5 times the cost.

I think the OHMs compete with the Quads and have better dynamics and impact than the QUADs for sure but at almost half the cost or less.

For full range, multiple drivers configured to approximate a point or short line source might image almost as well as a single driver can because the geometry of how the sound propagates is similar.

There are some omni designs that do this trick with inherently wider dispersion in 3-d. Morrisons, Wolcotts, and OHM Walshes are good examples.

Small monitors and some floorstanding Totems like the Arros are other examples in a more conventional box design.

I like these designs for good imaging best, especially for more nearfield listening. For listening from a distance in some larger rooms, taller line source or floorstander designs with multiple drivers can work better as well.

The mbl 111s were the best I've heard.

101s are probably as good or better and more dynamic from what I know but have never heard them.

Magico minis were also very good in a smaller room and so were PSB Synchrony series.

OHM Walshes are also very good. mbls had deeper soundstage but not wider. OHM Walsh omni sound levels are physically damped in wall facing directions, which may inhibit soundstage depth but enables them to go closer to walls and fit into rooms easier. They also cost about 1/5th or less than comparable mbls. OHM sound is more coherent through the midrange than mbl 111 due to the single wide range Walsh driver.

Dynaudios and Triangles can do the trick very well also when set up correctly.