Any current/former Mirage OM/Omni Series Owners out there? (1 Viewer)

Looking at either the Omni 260's or the OM-7's (maybe even the 9's) to base a 7.1 system on.

Had Def Techs for 10 years. Liked them alot. Now have Vandersteen. Really like the pinpoint imaging, but I'm finding I miss the "spaciousness" of the bipolar sound.

Just curious what the feedback is. What else did you have, and how would you compare the sound. Reliability, customer service, build quality, the whole 9 yards. I really wish they'd do an Omni version with more bass extension, but for right now, that is the OM series.

TIA!

Hi Kevin,

I moderate a thread at AVS devoted to the Omni Series from Mirage, wherein I do the "4 of 5 Review" between Martin Logan's Prodigies, and Mirage's Omni 250's and OM 7's. From the various contributors of the thread, you can extrapolate how the 260's may actually better the 250's...

However, there is no better proof than the given pudding, so after reading the thread and if you can find a somewhat local dealer, it would behoove you to listen to them for yourself. Just make sure the upstream componentry are as colorless (if you will) as possible. On top of that, please take time to work with one of the sales staff to get the speakers correctly setup. Given that, there is a good review of the '260's at Soundstage that walks one through a good setup procedure for the 260's...


Warm regards,
John Charles
(=AirCeej=)

John- Awesome. Yeah, there's actually a review of the 60's at Soundstage too, with measurements! Awesome. Thanks.

Yeah, with the Def Tech's I had, I felt that it was easier to get "good" sound with them vs direct radiators, but a little bit more difficult than monopoles to get "great" sound. I found it can be tricky to get the "spaciousness" and "imaging" balanced.

You're quite welcome Kevin. When you get the chance, give the ‘260’s a listen, as they will be worth your while.

I didn’t mention the Sound Stages review of the ‘60’s – as it’s a mixed bad at best, and incredibly inaccurate at its worst, to wit:

Very Good to Decent Aspects:

• Lead-in with the M1 was pretty nice until he got to its coverage pattern, as it never had a true 360-degree radiation pattern over its entire bandwidth (hearing it on a few occasions confirmed this). Having drivers firing bi-polar is one thing, but the eventual cardiod pattern of the highs does not constitute 360-degree coverage. Just because a manufacturer sez that’s what the speaker is doing, don’t mean it is. And for a “reviewer” to evidently follow that line - hook and sinker is pretty embarrassing.

• The description of the OmniGuide is pretty good as is the driver/deflector offset, but he then grazes himself in the foot by calling the mid/woofer a “woofer”. All the now commonplace corporate hype of driver nomenclature don’t alter the real-world task for the driver in the least. It is often times better for a reviewer to describe the driver for the overall band it covers - in this case: a midrange/woofer or mid/woofer, thereby separating him/her self from the manufacturer’s hopes and staying with the truth of the matter. All-in-all though, his description of the applied OmniGuide technology is really interesting, and I certainly learned something!

• It was nice that he includes notes on his setup and placement, although missing is some very vital information. More on this in the "...Glaring Omissions Section".

• His comments on some of the overall aspects to the speaker’s representation of the event were pretty good i.e. it’s spaciousness as well as it being neither too forward or the reverse. The fact that it disappears as a signal source in the room, and mentioning the reasonable image specificity was nice to see.

• Regards given to how the Omni measures was certainly informative.

• Covering the cabinet resonation problem and how it manifests itself was nice to see in print, and is the first time I’ve read it mentioned outside of the AVS Thread. It was this aspect alone that made me think that he actually listened to the speaker instead of just becoming enamored in the immersion of its radiated coverage. But given what he missed (see below), it’s evident that he didn’t listen to them much or if he did either neglected to write what he found, or didn't have time to do it.

• The look of the '60. I agree, it is one of the more becoming box speakers I’ve seen especially in the Cherry Veneer.


Strange and/or Ridiculous Aspects, and/or Glaring Omissions:

• Calling the design “radical” is yet another abuse of the English language. A radical speaker design may be Martin Logan’s CLS when first introduced as a speaker unto itself. A clear 4’ x 2’ (if I remember right) curved panel protected as it were by its stators, along with a rather nice wooden frame was certainly radical for the day. “Radical” in general may possibly be in thinking that Michael Jackson is the well-adjusted boy next door. “Radical” might be going for the mass lit fart record in the courtyard of a Nunnery. “RADICAL”, was the planned and blatant travesty that happened in the U.S. on 9/11. Two reflectors – one atop its respective driver certainly is not; uncommon for sure, even artful in execution, but definitely not radical.

• Again, the M1 was never a true omni directional speaker system.

• Although he talked about his setup and speaker placement, missing was how many hours were logged onto the ‘60’s before review; so readers haven’t a clue where in the break-in curve the speakers were.

• He indicates that he used 24” stands, but doesn’t indicate what type they are nor where his ears were (aside from on his head) in relation to the two drivers… With the ’50 there is a noticeable change in instrumental timber and loss of overall transparency when listening on a plane equal to the tweeter/reflector interface as opposed to what one hears when standing up – both at a distance of 7’ (in my case) from the speakers. Anything below the tweeter/reflector interface is a definite no-no. It would be nice if he had commented on how much these aspects were noticeable in the ‘60. Because if the problems are anything close to as prominent, then there is a definite trade-off if one wants to use these as mains when he or she is seated. To get greater transparency and detail in relation to the speaker as I mentioned, then they will probably have to position the ‘60’s (certainly the ‘50’s) on the floor. This then comes at the expense of soundstage height and the images within the stage – a very bad trade-off both sonically and aesthetically – one that a user should never have to choose.

• Speaking of trade-offs, there is no mention of what the ‘60 sounds like with and without the included erector set blankets. A very, glaring, omission.

• No mention of room dimensions or the acoustics of the room.

• Not comparing it to a reference, whether live acoustic non-amplified music or one of the more transparent speakers of his acquaintance. Who would do this anyway and why?! Anyone who wanted to let readers know just how much editing the speaker is or isn’t doing in relation, and what kind of ROI (Return On Investment) they’re getting for their hard earned green! THAT’S WHY!!! Any speaker can sound good on its own – hell, I’ve even enjoyed music through a table radio for that matter, but it is the well-rounded reviewer (not talking weight here) that contrasts the component in question to the most transparent standard he or she can afford so as to help readers make a more informed decision. Not to mention helping to keep the bullshit fluff passed-on to acquaintances, friends and/or family interested in the product – to a more manageable minimum.

• No mention of how the ’60 handles complex program material with and without dynamic transients. This is extremely important no matter what program material is played through it. Because some speakers will fall apart, others will become more brittle and forward, others will change timber in the lower registers, while others may fall apart via any combination of the aforementioned.

• Not much given at all about how it handles the signatures of even a handful of various instruments.

• No mention of how it handles leading and trailing edges.

• Using the top-end of Glenn Gould’s Piano (or anyone else’s for that matter) is certainly no way to wrest the extension capabilities of a high frequency transducer. It’s pretty embarrassing to use that as “review criteria” let alone broadcast such an error for public consumption…

If Doug has a day job and doesn’t get paid for writing reviews, then some of the omissions are obviously understood. After all there are work and/or family considerations or what have you – to consider; but the misrepresentations (The M1’s radiation pattern for instance) are not. Nonetheless if he and most of the other on-line reviewers that I’ve read are unpaid enthusiasts, then I can understand why the content reads as the in-depth previews they are (some can't hit that mark), rather than the full-blown reviews they should be.

In closing, it would been better if any “reviewer” writing a preview (let alone an honest-to-goodness review that actually tests the speakers capabilities) for the Omni Series paid attention to the AVS Thread and then did some comparative homework. For if they cared about content and outcome, they would certainly have an easy means by which to round-out their research thereby educating their audience to a far better degree.

John- Awesome. (Yes, I still need to check out the AVS thread. I need to forward it to work so I can print it out there on the much faster printer...) Yeah, I saw some of what you mentioned. Even in spite of all that, it still seemed to me to be a pretty good review.

Hey, some quandaries:

1) The 250, cc, 50: all 5.5" drivers. I like that idea. But no "CC" with 6.5" drivers yet for with the 260 & 60.

2) I also think of mating OM-9's in the front, with the Omni 60's in the back (all 6.5" drivers), with the OM-C2 in the front. (More bass extension and better omnipolar dispersion with the 60's than the OM-R2's, but the R2's have a more discrete shape and size.) ??

Maybe I'm getting too hung up on just trying to match the mid/woofer driver size in terms of guarenteeing matched timbre.

A little birdy today told me that indeed, Mirage is working on more speakers for the Omni line...

Kevin,

Please check out the AVS Forum for the Omni Series, as you'll find a lot of the information you're seeking - there...

As to the review in question, I’m sure many people would unfortunately think it a good one, due to that “style” being very much the norm. on the ‘net (and elsewhere) these days – misleading in cases, inaccurate in others, doing very little to challenge the very subject matter at hand (speakers in this case), while not comparing the subject to a reference. As this diluted attempt is all too common, many current day enthusiasts would know little else. Having written technically for the past 20 years, I assure you that there is more missing and blatantly wrong in the aforementioned review than there is truly digestible content intact. But that certainly doesn’t address the ongoing spirit of your question, so…

If you are interested in greater fidelity, I would certainly forego the OM 7’s or 9’s (having auditioned both) for the Omni 260’s or 250’s, and save money in the process. It is the rare occasion when a manufacturer introduces a lesser expensive line – most of which outperforming all but one of their statement series, but such is the case between the OM and Omni Series… Where the OM 5 and 7 may have the Omni 250 and 260 beat, is in the lower midrange (maybe) and comparable lack of cabinet resonance (definitely). Unfortunately I cannot make a positive conclusion of the former, as the ’250’s I auditioned were almost fresh out of the box compared to the fully broken-in 7’s… Though with the material I used, the ‘250’s easily bested the 7’s in the mid-midrange on up – with the 7’s (and everything below them in the OM Series for that matter) being too veiled in that critical range to take seriously; and I used slightly bright electronics to help ameliorate the OM Series penchant for being dull and veiled.

As a musician for 40 years and an audiophile for almost as long, I have gained a rather good understanding of how acoustical instruments (and events in general) may sound on both sides of the recording chain; and every time I’ve listened to an OM Series product, the same conclusion arose – “too veiled and mid-fi to take seriously”. Though 20 years ago I settled on Martin Logan’s as my speaker of choice, I find that the < $1,800.00 Magnepan ‘1.6QR (when crossed-over around 80Hz) brings me closer to the event than any current ML product I experienced; which brings about an interesting case-in-point. When auditioning equipment, work with the sales staff so they’ll allow you to compare the product in which you’re interested against one of their “references” (as I did with certain of the Omni Series against certain Martin Logans). If the system and room are properly setup, you (and the sales staff) will then receive a great education – something far better than mere postulation…

hey john, what kind of amp/receiver is well mated with the omni speakers?

In the amp. department, I've had great success with Anthem's MCA 20 (extremely impressive – performing well beyond its price range – though still alittle bright as mine has roughly 170 hours under its belt), and received even better results using the voltage outs of Sunfire's stereo amp. (excellent – no matter the price). As to receivers, a few of the contributors on the forum have commented on a synergistic match using certain Onkyo receivers with their '250’s and '260’s…

Interesting... my take on "dull and veiled" was "if these speakers were a woman she'd be full up top, slender in the middle, and draggin' a full, rounded wagon below", which to my ears is a good thing. I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination and I've never owned anything that could in any way be mistaken for high end audio equipment so take this with a bucket of salt, but I thought the OM7's sounded much better than the 260's, which I felt were to bright and "skinny". Maybe it's because I was listening to some pretty hard rock and bassy tunes instead of something more delicate.

LOL. Hmmm, when applying “dull” and “veiled” to the fairer sex, it conjures one who is rather slow-witted and not too becoming… No offense, however, its been my experience that the only practical way the 7’s could out do the ‘260’s (given your outcome) would be if the upstream componentry were bright and/or the ‘260’s were early in their break-in curve and/or the software used for the review were poorly recorded…

Good stuff all around...

I just downloaded the entire text version of the AVS thread, copied it into a Word file, changed to 8 pt font and single spacing, 0.5" margins, and it *still* occupies ~120 pages. Printed it out at work on the sly this morning. Guess I know what I'll be doing this weekend...

I would have to agree with Shane on his assessment of his OM-7's in comparison to the 260's.
I have the OM-5's and the 260s indeed are not in the same league & not a replacement for the flagship OM line.
Although they are a fine speaker, Priced very aggressively at close to 1/4 the mspr of the flagship OM-5s.
The OM-7 are about the same without the two 8" active woofers with 250watt amps per tower.
The 250/260s are a great value. John, No disrespect to your personal assessments of the OM-7 verses the 260. To those other potential buyers on a budget looking at the Mirage 250/260 speakers, just don't do a side by side with the upper OM line, you may have a much lighter wallet when you leave. If you decide to go 5.1/7.1, the OM-C2 center & OM-R2 surrounds will also cost you about 2x the price.
If you treat yourself to the OM-5 or 7's, keep in mind they need plenty of room.
Mirage has a long history of fantastic products.
-Jerry

Jerry- Awesome. You actually reinforced what I was beginning to believe. I am 1/2 way through the AVS thread, and the comments about the 250/260 grill, cabinet resonances, and lack of bass extension keep pushing me in the direction of the OM-7's/9's. (I have seen too many excellent reviews of both the OM-7 & 9 to believe that they aren't as similarly worth their price or more ratioed to the 250/260. If that makes sense. Oh yeah, and with the 7 & 9 it seems you get more of a 360 deg, sphereoid soundfield, whereas with the 250/260, because of the single tweeter, it seems that you'd get more of a semi-sphere with a flat spot on the bottom... I have a picture in my head, but hard to describe.)

I'm trying to hold onto my original boundary condition of not doing anything until next year (giving Mirage time to put out a version ... "360" , with more bass extension, and a CC version with 6.5" drivers, and making sure I'd be doing the right thing by giving up the Vandersteen setup). But, just watched Magnolia tonight, which is not a movie with heavy surround use, but it was just too obvious from which speaker each particular soundtrack element was coming from. Plus, a very bad person hooked me up with a very good dealer so we'll have to see... Very excellent list of reviews on Mirage's site, and I actually sent away for the issue of UHF that had the complete OM-9 review. They even had measurements too! I *do* remember how the Def Tech's sounded, and even though I *say* I'm an 80% music guy, if I actually think about more recent use, it's more 50/50 music/HT...

AirCeej- You da Man! Awesome thread over there.

Jerry,

No offence taken. Nonetheless, in my review, I had the Mirage ‘7’s, and ‘250’s, alongside Martin Logan Prodigies - all three were fed by an Arcam CD Player (forget the model number, and don’t know where it was in its break-in curve), Anthem TLP 1 (w/roughly 10 hours on it), Anthem MCA 20 (w/roughly 10 hours on it), and I forget what cables and interconnects were in the system. However, the rather astonished sales person and I bore witness to the fact that in the mid-mids on up, the ‘7’s (fully broken-in) are indeed veiled when in direct comparison to the ‘250’s (w/roughly 16 hours under their belts) and the ML Prodigies (fully broken – in). What the ‘250’s lacked in lower mid range accuracy has since been mostly ameliorated by the their break-in; but it is in this area where the ‘7’s are still somewhat better.

After that encounter I spent a little bit of time with the ‘260’s, and through extrapolation (given the amount of time I experimented with the ‘7’s and ‘250’s in the aforementioned review, and information that I've received in my thread by its contributors), I wouldn’t hesitate to take the 260’s over the ‘7’s, as the ‘7’s are too veiled in this rather important range and simply cannot relay program information that the ‘250’s and ‘260’s do with comparative ease. Although what these two can’t do in their lower registers will usually be supported and augmented by (hopefully) a well-chosen and setup subwoofer in the system within which they’re partnered.

But this then begs the question of: Did you compare the ‘7’s and ‘260’s in the same system within the same timeframe, to arrive at your assessment?

And no disrespect intended, but I would never consider Mirage to have a "long history of fantastic products” (except for a few of their subs), as in my experience – they’ve (again) been way too veiled to take seriously when directly compared with products for the same or less that aren’t as obviously handicapped. Given that, it does seem that they learned some important lessons in matters of higher fidelity with the current Omni Series (which in a few important areas needs help), lets just hope they take those lessons and apply them to their statement series. Therefore, I do agree with your conclusion of the two given lines not being in the same class – a very important reason why I wouldn't spend money on any current OM Series Product...


Kevin,

The Omni Series with their grills on are obviously more transparent than the lion's share of their OM Series brethren. If you don't believe me, make the comparison yourself on a system worthy enough to help you discern the differences between the two with software up to the challenge. Then compare the two of your choice against a more statement product like one of the upper echelon ML’s or Magnepans, whereby you can better understand how much editing the Mirages are doing and in what areas. As I said, it is the rare occasion that a manufacturer brings forth a product line that outclasses most of their statement series; Mirage did just that with their current Omni Line…

Although if you want even greater fidelity than any of the Omni’s or OM's can muster, purchase a pair of Magnepan ‘1.6QR’s (cheaper than the '7's), cross them over around 80Hz, aim them in a cross-firing or H. Beveridge arrangement (if you have a distributed seating HT), situate them properly in your room (as anyone looking for greater fidelity would do with their speakers anyway), find synergistic upstream componentry (as one should normally do), and have done with it.


Warm regards to all,
John Charles
(AirCeej)

i have the omni cc for center, omni 50 for rears and omni 60's for fronts with two sawm40 subs with a hk avr 225 driving them. i dont have much money to spend and these speakers took me a few months to save up for :frowning:

ive listened to the 250 and 260's in a side by side comparison before and imo the 260s sound far superior, imo with a cub the omni 60's sound superior to the 250's.

heres a link to another review i had book marked.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...rs-5-2003.html

If anyone that wants the straight facts & capabilities of both of these speaker lines,it may be worth your while to give Mirage a call, I'm sure they may sing a whole different tune. Ask if they will share the anechoic chamber test results, ask for the Response Graph, Bandwidth Graph, Dispersion Graph, & any others they are willing to make available. You come to your own conclusions with these comparisons of the performance facts. This would take all human factors out of the mix.
The graphs & test results will not be biased as this is a very difficult emotion to overcome for all of us.

Keep in mind we are comparing two models within the same company. I'm sure most don't feel the old Chevy Vega was also in direct sales competition with the Corvette.
I know which line will show to be superior across all the test graphs.
I will need to look for my details on my OM-5s,
I lost a PC & drive not long ago, in this crash much of my most desired files also went corrupt.
I'm sure Andrew Welker has plenty of data available at Mirage. Of course these numbers mean nothing for your own room's acoustics, So the lesser Omni line within smaller rooms may prove to give more mileage in some applications.
As in John's personal comparison, The nature of the OM-7 & OM-5 requires a very large open area to work with, this area would imo be to large for the omni 250/260. The ideal room size & placement would not be the same for the OM-5/7s as with the 250/260. Hence a possible reason your A/B audition was flawed for the OM-7s. imo These are a rather difficult to fairly A/B. Again the reason to use anechoic chamber test results for raw numbers.
In my personal application I found the OM-5s a better fit over our B&W N802's in our ht. The nature of the omni polar did play a huge role in our tastes within this application.
Little over a week ago I spent five + hours auditioning several speakers for a project, I'm sure the $30K Dynaudio Temptation speakers & the $10K PLINIUS Odeon amp we used as a reference would not be as jaw dropping in our ht, I feel the sonics just may collapse due to inefficient surrounding space for such a beast of speaker.

Mirage & other speaker manufactures have recently launched new lower priced products in the past year or so to fight off some of the new factory direct concept offerings.
This was in conjunction to help maintain product flow within their sales network. This move was not to omit or surpass the sonic benefits of the current flagship line.
This move was to tap into a different buying audience.

I did find it interesting that Mirage Speakers made a onetime appearance to the AVS thread to defend their policy in regards to seconds and cosmetic blemished products.
At no point have they substantiated or denied any claims made within that given thread.
I do understand the reasoning behind this, but lets keep in mind those claims have not been blessed in any form.
I do understand that this appearance was made by the Brand Manager for Mirage Loudspeakers, Andrew Welker has not given any indications to these raw numbers.
Also by the nature of the thread I have seen several member posts just mentioning the OM line with replies that they are off topic,in many regards this is correct & should be in a different thread, But yet that same thread has gone into many different topic directions outside the omni spectrum like, landscape mountains, most favorite drummers and so on. Just don't bring in the flagship OM line into discussion or direct comparisons, or even within a welcome to the Mirage Brand Manager. The thread has not experienced any type of controversy & comparisons between the two models.
It would be interesting to see Mirage's comments defining the differences at some point.
This would likely not happen in a public forum of any type.
This is why the test information is key.

As for Magnepan, Made in White Bear Lake Minnesota, I'm in Coon Rapids, Minnesota, not but 15 miles from the factory.
I have had hands on several models for home auditions.
They very fine speaker when applied to the proper application.

John, I offer you high respect as you are very proficient in the use of the English vocabulary, This alone carries a convincing factor to your beliefs & findings.
I just hope others look & listen to the findings of Mirage them selves.

As always, everyone should make their purchasing decisions solely on what fits your needs & budget.
Best Regards,
Happy listening.
-Jerry

Jerry,

Anyone calling the company to get the company line on products, will more likely than not get just that: the company line - therefore; straightforward answers with most of the nice details involved sans protecting their interests - are most often vaporware (refreshingly unlike a few companies such as SVS)... As a student of history I’m sure you're well aware (and in one way or another experienced) that various societies, cultures, and “subcultures” have been and are rather saturated with companies and countries protecting their self interests all the while showing one face and message to the general public, while holding fast to many others. Therefore, if one wants the straight facts on the aforementioned speaker lines, the proof comes in the careful and comparative listening, not the asking. Along with that, all the charts and measurements in the world will not relay in the least how a given audio product actually performs; and you should know better than to give either of the above as seek-able advice. Ergo, to support the latter, an excerpted quote from A. Welker from the AVS Thread: “I have the unfortunate task of letting you know that, even with all of the sophisticated measurement equipment and anechoic chambers that we have access to here in the lab, I still can't come close to designing a loudspeaker by measurements alone. To give you a rough idea, when designing the crossover for a system, which is THE most difficult part of any project, less than 10% of my time is spent doing measurements. The rest is spent in the listening room comparing to other products, comparing to well known recordings of all types of music, and generally agonizing over the details.”

As to your likening the Vega and Corvette unto the Omni and OM series and referring to the Omni’s as “lesser” – is certainly fetching, especially since you haven’t relayed whether or not you actually have experience with both lines via listening to and experimenting with (say) the ‘260’s or ‘250’s and ‘7’s in the same room. If not, then the adulterated postulation in this case is an opinion without merit and akin to a fart in a high wind: it stinks, carries fast, yet dies quickly due to lack of evidence. Had you actually listened to certain of the Omni Series carefully and were honest (not saying that you are not by nature) about the outcome; you would of course write a different tune. On top of that, stating that my auditioning was flawed concerning room dimensions without you being privy to them or asking me first (unless you read the AVS Thread) is an embarrassment and highly curious. However so you know, the rough dimensions of that particular room were ~ 30’ long x ~16’ wide x ~10’ high (drop ceiling). You then further with the OM’s needing a large open room within which to work, yet you don’t give “how open” or “how large” concluding that this ambiguous space would be too large for the Omni’s – a series with which you appear to have no experience… Given that, I’d say that the above-mentioned room fits both criterion and certainly helped to find where both the ‘7’s and '250’s excelled and failed.

As an aside so you and others know, the OM Series is NOT truly Omni-directional or to use Mirage’ marketing nomenclature for bipolar in this case - “Omnipolar”, as the cardioid radiation pattern of the bipolar tweeters will attest. The speakers in general have greater than usual dispersion characteristics – gotta give ‘em that, but they are not truly omni-directional, the new Omni Line of course – is…

I agree, you and others should carefully listen to both lines in the same room via equipment and source material up to the task, to gain actual experience… If after then you and I still disagree, let’s toast to each other’s health, the information we found (if uncovered wisely and carefully), and call it a day…


Warm regards,
John Charles
=AirCeej=

John,
I'm short on time & my full reply will need to follow later. Maybe you can read my replies to this thread again.
I felt I did elude to the fact my comparisons had been done with the OM-5' & Omni 260s.
I will need to also read your replies again prior to my next rebuttal.
My first opinion on your last reply was you became defensive & almost personal in nature. My use of “lesser” was in describing the pricing of the corporate food-chain within Mirage & the Chevy.
Not many manufactures give away diamonds in the rough without the need to pay for them,let alone within their own ranks & devaluation of their own flagship. If a person feels they found a diamond,I say great this is what the hobby is all about. I'm a firm believer you get what you pay for, I don't feel diminishing returns ends at the Omni 260 priced at $1k pr.
I never stated your auditioning was flawed, I said: a possible reason your A/B audition was flawed for the OM-7s. imo. Indeed I have followed & have been a limited participant of the AVS thread.
-Jerry