Anyone dislike Ohm Walsh speakers?

@unsound -- you're right. I had a pair of the original Ohm Fs back in the mid-1970s.  They had no tweeter, but the cone was made from different materials -- metal at the top to handle highs, but bonded to a paper at the bottom.  Any original A and F speakers are almost certainly non-functional unless rebuilt, and Ohm Speakers hasn't done that for years, though a couple of other companies will do this.

The current Ohms use a more conventional cone, but do include a tweeter, but it is crossed over at a very high frequency, so the main speaker still provides the bulk of the sound.

I have owned W2-100s3 for about 14 yrs. Originally bought original W2s online in MA then sent to John to upgrade before shipping to me in HI. I previously owned Ohm C3s.I also own Kef R3s, Spendor LS3/5, JBL L110, Rogers LS3/5. The Ohms are my favorite for their openness. imaging, bass, easy placemtn and natural sound. My only issue with them is they are not good at low volume/low power for late night listening.thua the Kefs. I also have a wierd, packed room which is also my living room so the omnis work well in that space. For the money I think they are very good The cabinet work is good not great. Ohm Customer Service is good too as JOhn is reposnsive. They did take a number of months to break in and they like good power if you want them to respond best. There are some other speakers I would love to look at but they would all be quite a bit more than these cost, like $8-10K.

@bakufu I gather you are quite pleased with your ohm F5s. It leads me to wonder if you auditioned any of their other Omni speakers before settling on the F5. I am not saying your choice was wrong, far from it. I'm interested to know if the F5 was so much better that the cost was justified compared to their other offerings. I am strongly considering a pair to use in my rebuilt home (post fire) and want very much to understand how much better the F5 is before I throw down the money. I have a pair of Walsh 2000 talls at the moment that I really like. They are a bit weak on the low end but the overall presentation is quite nice. I love the lack of a rigid imaging point, that they provide a reasonable stereo image over a relatively wide area. I use them in my office on either side of the desk and find I can move around like people do when they are working and not lose the sweet spot. It is a very clean sounding speaker thru the upper bass and midrange and up into the highs. Very satisfied with that open airy sound with a broad image. Its hard to find fault other than the bottom end being a bit shy. Thats where the subs enter and its awfully good. How well do the built in subs in the F5 integrate into the rest of the system sound? IF I purchase a set of F5s I want them to be so good I have no desire to look elsewhere. talk to me...what has your experience been?

@livinon2wheels If I might throw my 2¢ in here, Ohm Walsh speakers are a bit unique when it comes to scaling of different models.  As John Strohbeen used to say, all of them sound essentially the same.  The differences are based on output required to fill different size rooms, and low bass extension.  I can vouch for this as I own both the 2000s and a pair of MicroWalsh Talls.  The F5 offers the greatest output capabilities and the deepest bass extension of the line, due to the powered woofers.  I run my 2000s each with their own subs (Vandersteen 2Wq), so I get very good deep bass extension and output.  The 2000s are appropriate for my room volume.  Ohm has a chart on their site to help you determine which models will work in your room.  If you go with a smaller model and want more bass extension and output, consider adding subwoofers like I did.  Wonderful combo that leaves me wanting nothing.

@bondmanp I appreciate your input. I am currently running a pair 2000s in my office with svs PC 2000 subs (2) and that combo gives honest full range sound that I have no quibbles with. Its very satisfying to listen to and is truly reference quality to my ears. This system is destined for my office when we move back into the house. 

As such, it leaves the larger entertainment room with no clearly defined system as of yet. According to Ohm's chart it fits the requirements for the 5000 or F5. But because this system must do dual duty, home theater and music, I am considering standard box speakers for that location. I think point source radiators tend to work better in multichannel applications than Omni directional speakers do. Though ultimately, I want to test that with SOTA samples of each type in that room and see which I prefer overall. 

My thinking is that the current design of the Ohm omni, regardless of which model you choose, is going to serve the task better due to the somewhat hybrid nature of this design, i.e. the single tweeter added for frequencies above 8k. I think there is a certain genius to this approach as it provides some of the best characteristics of both direct radiators in a box and the omni-directional design in the same speaker, lending it to have advantages over other approaches. While they are not cheap by any means, they are at least within the realm of reasonable cost and due to their rather impressive performance certainly worthy of consideration.