Mobile Fidelity OML-1 Loudspeaker

Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab 318 N. Laflin Street Chicago, IL 60607-1006 USA

Basic Description

Bookshelf loudspeakers with 1.25” silk dome tweeter and 6.5” mica/kevlar impregnated paper cone; shielded; sensitivity 88 dB; 6 ohms; bi-wire capable; weight 20 pounds; measuring 12.5”H x 8”W x 14.5”D; 10 year warranty; $300 upcharge for rosewood or sycamore, $500 more in walnut high gloss (see pictures on website). Music Direct now owns Mobile Fidelity, so all the products are sold directly through them.

Associated Equipment

Musical Fidelity A308 Integrated Amplifier and A308 CD player, Audioquest cables, Lovan Affiniti 24 and Premier SS-26 stands; Bowers & Wilkins 705 loudspeakers ($1500) and Von Schweikert VR-1 loudspeakers ($1000) for comparison.

Setup

Break-in took place over a 4 week period. I ran the speakers with movie and music sound in a two-channel configuration. The speakers come with small metal cones or rubber feet that can be stuck onto the bottom of the speakers. I didn't use either and chose to put the speakers on stands. The speakers are solid and the binding posts on the back are very impressive. I left the shorting bars for bi-wiring in place during the review. I used speaker wire with both spade and banana connectors with no trouble.

Right out of the box the speaker design looked familiar although the representative from Mobile Fidelity assured me that the drivers, crossover, and cabinet were tweaked/designed specifically for their purposes. The original design was intended for use as a monitor in their mastering room. Apparently, they felt the design was so good that it should be marketed to the end-user. When I showed the speakers to an audiophile buddy he said, "Hey, those look like the Von Schweikerts!" I happened to have a chance to check out a set of VR-1s and there were definitely some similarities. The bass driver looks almost identical and the tweeter looks similiar except for four extra screws. The cabinet height and width are identical and the port in the back is not only the same shape and size, but in the same location in the cabinet. They are also both manufactured in China. The one obvious physical difference is that the OML-1 has a larger angled front baffle. And later, I found out the second big difference...the sound.

Listening Test I -- OML-1 vs. VR-1

Since I had access to the VR-1 and the designs seemed to be superficially similiar, I thought I might as well make some listening comparisons. I began with track 4, "Santa Monica," from Everclear's Sparkle and Fade. A friend and I did most of the listening together and he helped to switch speaker cables back and forth for me and I for him. The VR-1 produced more sibilance on the voice and sounded slightly nasal and congested in the midrange. There appeared to be less definition and air overall. There was an added richness to the guitars that was pleasing, however. The OML-1's did not have as much power on the accompanying guitars, but the lead guitar clearly sounded better than on the VR-1. The voice was dead center and very clean. I felt I was missing a little low end and with music with prodigious amounts of deep bass (or in large rooms), I would recommend the addition of a subwoofer. Mid- and upper-bass sounded fine, and even at higher levels I didn't hear any strange distortions in the bass region. Due to the fact that the voice sounded less colored and the sense of space and air was better on the OML-1, the slight added richness was not enough of a reason to prefer the VR-1.

The next track I listened to was "Infatuation," track 6, off of Christina Aguilera's Stripped CD. The VR-1's were slightly shouty in the voice, and there appeared to be an emphasis in the midrange on this track just like the first. The bass was not as well defined as with the Mobile Fidelity speakers and the presentation was not nearly as open sounding. The OML-1's had better imaging, voice was more natural, and there was a feeling that more information was being retrieved from the recording. This track clearly demonstrated the superiority of the OML- 1's, and at this point I realized I would have to look for a more worthy contender.

Listening Test II -- OML-1 vs. 705

Bowers and Wilkins have always had a fine reputation and have produced many good monitor (i.e. smaller- sized) speakers. The 705's are the newest model in the series that used to be called CDM. They are more expensive than the OML-1 in the black finish, but are equivalent in price when the OML-1 is purchased in the gloss walnut. Right away I was encouraged by how close in many ways the speakers both sounded.

I put on track 6, "Rudy," from my MFSL recording of Supertramp's Crime of the Century. The B&W speaker has a larger cabinet, and this resulted in slightly improved low-bass performance. There was an added richness in the midrange imparted by the speaker that sweetened the sound in this area in a pleasing way. In fact, the whole frequency range sounded a little richer and smoother. I wouldn't say it is veiled, but in some ways softened perhaps. I was surprised when I switched to the OML-1's. I was expecting a much larger difference than I heard. Vocals on the Mobile Fidelity speakers were crystal clear--glassy. At higher levels there was a very slight strain on the speakers than seemed to reduce their presence. By comparison, when the B&W's got louder, they just got loud. The bass on the OML-1 was very impressive given its size.

I listened to two different tracks from Atlantic Jazz: Best Of The '60s, Volume 1. The first one was Les McCann singing and playing piano on "With These Hands." The second one was "Equinox" by John Coltrane. The OML- 1's were slightly laid back in comparison to a slightly more upfront sound produced by the 705's. In my notes I wrote that there was less added to the voice when listening through the OML-1's, but this made the speaker less involving. The piano in certain parts of the record (although somewhat badly recorded) came across more clearly with the 705's. Image size was a bit smaller than with the B&W's. The sound was unemphasized, however the cymbals (for some reason) did not sound as convincing as with the 705's. With the 705 there was a feeling of softened high frequencies, but voice was richer and fuller. An extra bit of presence and larger soundstage made the sound seemed less confined.

I switched over to classical music and put on a Deutsche Grammophon recording of Brahms, Ein Deutsches Requiem op. 45. I did most of the listening with the first track. The OML-1's produced a sound that was controlled and polite, almost like what you expect from a typical British mini-monitor--very delicate and clean. There was a good sense of space. The B&W 705 did NOT sound like a typical British mini-monitor and sounded big and bold. At the same time, tonally, the speaker reminded me of a warm blanket, the choral group comes in and comforts and warms you.

With part II, "Forlane" from Le Tombeau de Couperin by Ravel off a London CD I noted that the OML-1's did not deliver as rich a presentation as the 705's, but my notes read: "Totally believable." Some listeners may prefer a sweeter sound, but the design of the Mobile Fidelity OML-1 is clearly not to emphasize or de-emphasize any particular range of sound. Similiarly, on track 3, "Whenever I Say Your Name," from Sting's Sacred Love CD I felt the OML-1's were not as lush as the B&W's, and a little dryer on the vocals. The percussion on this track sounded exceptionally clean with the Mobile Fidelity speakers.

Conclusion

In many ways the OML-1 represents a bargain. It stood head to head with a more expensive speaker in many aspects of performance. Mobile Fidelity has accomplished exactly what they were after--an accurate reproducer that does not unduly color the sound. So, sure enough, it works extremely well as a small monitor speaker, and will also find a happy home for people who value accuracy and trueness of sound. For those looking for a little boost here, a little cut there, you will need to look elsewhere or depend on upstream electronics to affect that change.

Brian Bloom

Mobile Fidelity OML-1 Loudspeaker

By Brian Bloom

Setup

Break-in took place over a 4 week period. I ran the speakers with movie and music sound in a two- channel configuration. The loudspeakers come with small metal cones or rubber feet that can be stuck onto the bottom of the speakers. I didn't use either and chose to put the speakers on stands. The speakers are solid and the binding posts on the back are very impressive. I left the shorting bars for bi- wiring in place during the review. I used speaker wire with both spade and banana connectors with no trouble.

Right out of the box the loudspeaker design looked familiar although the representative from Mobile Fidelity assured me that the drivers, crossover, and cabinet were tweaked/designed specifically for their purposes. The original design was intended for use as a monitor in their mastering room. Apparently, they felt the design was so good that it should be marketed to the end-user. When I showed the speakers to an audiophile buddy he said, "Hey, those look like the Von Schweikerts!" I happened to have a chance to check out a set of VR-1s and there were definitely some similarities. The bass driver looks almost identical and the tweeter looks similiar except for four extra screws. The cabinet height and width are identical and the port in the back is not only the same shape and size, but in the same location in the cabinet. They are also both manufactured in China. The one obvious physical difference is that the OML-1 has a larger angled front baffle. And later, I found out the second big difference...the sound.

Listening Test I -- OML-1 vs. VR-1

Since I had access to the VR-1 and the designs seemed to be superficially similar, I thought I might as well make some listening comparisons. I began with track 4, "Santa Monica," from Everclear's Sparkle and Fade. A friend and I did most of the listening together and he helped to switch speaker cables back and forth for me and I for him. The VR-1 produced more sibilance on the voice and sounded slightly nasal and congested in the midrange. There appeared to be less definition and air overall. There was an added richness to the guitars that was pleasing, however. The OML-1's did not have as much power on the accompanying guitars, but the lead guitar clearly sounded better than on the VR-1. The voice was dead center and very clean. I felt I was missing a little low end and with music with prodigious amounts of deep bass (or in large rooms), I would recommend the addition of a subwoofer. Mid- and upper-bass sounded fine, and even at higher levels I didn't hear any strange distortions in the bass region. Due to the fact that the voice sounded less colored and the sense of space and air was better on the OML-1, the slight added richness was not enough of a reason to prefer the VR-1.

The next track I listened to was "Infatuation," track 6, off of Christina Aguilera's Stripped CD. The VR- 1's were slightly shouty in the voice, and there appeared to be an emphasis in the midrange on this track just like the first. The bass was not as well defined as with the Mobile Fidelity speakers and the presentation was not nearly as open sounding. The OML-1's had better imaging, voice was more natural, and there was a feeling that more information was being retrieved from the recording. This track clearly demonstrated the superiority of the OML-1's, and at this point I realized I would have to look for a more worthy contender.

Listening Test II -- OML-1 vs. 705

Bowers and Wilkins have always had a fine reputation and have produced many good monitor (i.e. smaller-sized) speakers. The 705's are the newest model in the series that used to be called CDM. They are more expensive than the OML-1 in the black finish, but are equivalent in price when the OML-1 is purchased in the gloss walnut. Right away I was encouraged by how close in many ways the speakers both sounded.

I listened to two different tracks from Atlantic Jazz: Best Of The '60s, Volume 1. The first one was Les McCann singing and playing piano on "With These Hands." The second one was "Equinox" by John Coltrane. The OML-1's were slightly laid back in comparison to a slightly more upfront sound produced by the 705's. In my notes I wrote that there was less added to the voice when listening through the OML-1's, but this made the speaker less involving. The piano in certain parts of the record (although somewhat badly recorded) came across more clearly with the 705's. Image size was a bit smaller than with the B&W's. The sound was not emphasized, however the cymbals (for some reason) did not sound as convincing as with the 705's. With the 705 there was a feeling of softened high frequencies, but voice was richer and fuller. An extra bit of presence and larger soundstage made the sound seemed less confined.

I switched over to classical music and put on a Deutsche Grammophon recording of Brahms, Ein Deutsches Requiem op. 45. I did most of the listening with the first track. The OML-1's produced a sound that was controlled and polite, almost like what you expect from a typical British mini-monitor-- very delicate and clean. There was a good sense of space. The B&W 705 did NOT sound like a typical British mini-monitor and sounded big and bold. At the same time, tonally, the speaker reminded me of a warm blanket, the choral group comes in and comforts and warms you.

With part II, "Forlane" from Le Tombeau de Couperin by Ravel off a London CD I noted that the OML- 1's did not deliver as rich a presentation as the 705's, but my notes read: "Totally believable." Some listeners may prefer a sweeter sound, but the design of the Mobile Fidelity OML-1 is clearly not to emphasize or de-emphasize any particular range of sound. Similiarly, on track 3, "Whenever I Say Your Name," from Sting's Sacred Love CD I felt the OML-1's were not as lush as the B&W's, and a little dryer on the vocals. The percussion on this track sounded exceptionally clean with the Mobile Fidelity speakers.

Conclusion

Associated Equipment

Musical Fidelity A308 Integrated Amplifier and A308 CD player, Audioquest cables, Lovan Affiniti 24 and Premier SS-26 stands; Bowers & Wilkins 705 loudspeakers ($1,500) and Von Schweikert VR-1 loudspeakers ($1,000) for comparison.

Specifications

Type: Bookshelf loudspeakers

Drivers: 1.25-inch silk dome tweeter and 6.5-inch mica/kevlar impregnated paper cone midrange/woofer (shielded)

Sensitivity: 88dB/W/m

Impedance: 6 ohms

Bi-wire capable

Weight: 20 pounds

Dimensions: 12.5 x 8 x 14.5 (HxWxD in inches)

mobile fidelity OML-1 loudspeakers as reviewed by Francisco Duran and Ed Morawski

As with the Mobile Fidelity OML-2s, the temptation to pull these speakers from their boxes and their blue velvet bags proved too strong to resist, so out they came and onto my Osiris speaker stands they went. I mentioned in my OML-2 review that the 1 is a chopped off version of the 2. Pardon such a crude description, but it proved true in more than looks. Although the OML-1s have less bass output, they are very well balanced. They dished out enough bass to satisfy on most of the rock and jazz music I threw at them. The treble and midrange were very well blended, although, as with the 2s, the midrange was a bit recessed. That trait was not entirely to my liking, but the OML-1s' slightly laid back sound only seemed to draw me into records like Magic Slim's Black Tornado and Otis Rush's Any Place I'm Going. These two CDs won't win any prizes for recording quality, but the music is down home rocking blues at its rawest and finest.

The OML-1s' even frequency balance reminded me of my Proac Response Twos, though the Twos have a slightly hotter upper midrange and are more revealing. Their extension at both extremes has made me keep them around for quite a while. Their bass has always been satisfying, and sufficiently full on most music. So it was with the OML-1s. Their bass, while not monstrous, was always satisfying. They mustered enough low- end weight to create a nice balance. The quality and pace of the bass was also pretty good. Where the OML-2s part from the Responses is in the upper midrange, as they dispense with any emphasis above or below that critical spot. Another attractive quality of the OML-1s was their accuracy of timbre. This is an area that can make or break a component. With my Canary tube amp and preamp, the OML-1s exhibited realistic vocal and instrumental timbres. Digging back to 1977 in my bag of CDs, the OML-2s showcased Crosby, Stills and Nash's beautiful vocal harmonies pretty well. On songs like "Shadow Captain" and "See The Changes," their voices floated effortlessly. The MFs and the amplifier, with its quartet of 300Bs, combined to create a realistic, involving musical experience. I heard similar qualities on the soundtrack to Big Bad Love. The song "Long Way Home," which features Tom Waits, had an appealing smoothness. The fact that I am not a fan of Mr. Waits' singing proved that the OML-1s were capable of drawing me into the performance. Their resolution was also pretty good. Since this disc is a compilation, differences in recording quality were clearly heard.

I am a big fan of Bernard Hermann's, so decided to spin some of his music. Call it a guilty pleasure—I call it just plain fun. Start the CD The Journey to the Center of the Earth anywhere, and you will hear a cornucopia of sound: "Salt Slides," with its descending clarinets, "Atlantis," with its pipe organ, or "The Giant Chameleon And The Fight," with its horns of all colors. Although the little MoFis couldn't quite reach the center of the earth, their musical balance again brought the music across. Bass, especially upper bass, sounded taut, fast, and clean.

Smoothness and balance doesn't tell the whole story, however, and switching back to my Proac Response Twos revealed this clearly. The Twos simply have more resolution, more dynamic shading, and more musical color. The OML-1s' smoothness is inviting, but music sometimes has bite and sharpness. The Proacs' ability to reveal this, along with their lack of the OML-1s' recessed mids, made for a more musically inviting experience. The Response Twos, which were considerably more expensive in their day compared to the MoFis, showed that there was more music tos be wrung from stand-mounted speakers.

Nevertheless, the Mobile Fidelity OML-1s have a lot to offer. Their sound, appearance, and build quality give them the tools they need to fend off the competition in a crowded field.

Francisco Duran

This was one review I was really excited about! Mobile Fidelity has been a leading name in audiophile recording for so long that when I found out they were coming out with their own speakers, I knew they would be good. First, I would like to compliment MoFI on the packaging, of all things. These were about the best-packed items I have ever seen! They arrived in one large, very sturdy box that contained two smaller boxes surrounded by foam. Inside each smaller box there was more foam and sponge wrap. When I took that out, I found a plastic bag, and inside that, a velvet bag! Releasing the drawstrings of the velvet bag, I finally found an OML-1. It was amusing to start with such a large box and end up with a pair of tiny speakers!

These speakers deserve the careful attention to packing. The OML-1s exude quality, from their beautiful finish to their jewel-like binding posts. I thought they were $2000 - $3000 speakers from their appearance, but when I discovered that they sell for $1299 (in rosewood—they are available in black for $999), I was astonished. I couldn't wait to get them connected, to discover whether these tiny gems could sound as good as they looked.

The binding posts function like high quality parts. They grip heavy speaker cables quite well, unlike others I've had to deal with! Since the OML-1s are small and light (20 lbs.), it was easy to set them up. I placed them on 24-inch Target stands about two feet from the wall and eight feet apart, pointing straight ahead. Norah Jones' debut album happened to be handy, so that was first up. I was immediately blown away by the sound of these speakers. The word "smooth" kept coming into my mind over and over, but the exquisite detail was also obvious. Jones' vocals sounded both rich and extremely smooth, like the velvet bag the OML-1s arrived in. Her piano and the band's guitars exhibited the same richness and detail.

As my initial shock wore off, I became aware of the OML-1s' other talents. The soundstage was almost exactly three feet high and ten feet wide, as if I were sitting in the first row of an intimate jazz club. The imaging was top notch, and even the bass was amazing considering the size of the cabinets and their tiny rear ports. After listening for an hour, I had to do another Google search to verify the retail price of the speakers. Yep, they really were less than a thousand dollars. This has to be one of today's best audio bargains!

It was time to really put these babies to the test. Could the bass hold up to a workout? Madonna's American Music went into my Musical Fidelity Nu Vista CD player, and the room started rocking. Of course, the bass remained in the upper bass region, but it sounded more than fine. It was amazing. There was no boom, overextension, or breakup—just clean, tight notes. I have two favorite CD tracks that test a speaker's bass handling ability, Alison Krause's "It Doesn't Matter," in which one of Union Station's guitars hits a low D note, and Keiko Matsui's "Deep Blue," which has plenty of synthesizer bass. On both these tracks, the OML-1s reproduced what they could, without trying to go lower and failing. The bass sounded smooth and tight, with no boom.

Over the next few weeks, I continued to enjoy the OML-1s with all types of music. Jazz and acoustic recordings sounded especially fine, but rock and pop were equally listenable. The OML-1s let go of the music so easily and effortlessly that it was a true pleasure to listen to them. Even cranking the volume way up resulted in no negative reactions. I tried a few different positions, including toeing them in to various degrees, but soon went back to the original straight-ahead setup. In my smallish room, this gave the best imaging and soundstage.

I am sure that much of the appeal of the OML-1s can be attributed to their sloped front baffles. In rooms like mine, in which the listener is forced to sit close to the speakers, time alignment certainly helps. I have heard through the grapevine that Mobile Fidelity is having these little beauties made in China. If that is true, China has come a long way very fast. I still marvel at the workmanship and attention to detail. The speakers also carry a ten-year warranty, so MoFi must be pretty confident in the manufacturer.

During the last week of listening to the OML-1s, I switched to the Morel Octaves, then to the Usher X-719s, then to my DIY reference speakers. After a day with each of those, I put the OML-1s back in. Hearing them again was like coming back home. Norah Jones returned for the final hour, and once again I was transported to a small nightclub to enjoy a personal concert. I turned the lights down low, leaned back, and the day's troubles drained away. The Mobile Fidelity OML-1s generated lots of positive comments from friends and family. They are beautiful, look much more expensive than they are, and are a real bargain at the asking price. Best of all, they are very easy speakers to listen to. What more could you ask? Highly recommended. Ed Morawski

MoFi web address: www.mofi.com