How do Ohm Walsh speakers compare to Maggies?

Marty hit it pretty good.

a different kind of "open" imaging compared to Maggie with more weight, impact or "meat on the bones".

I had original OHM Walsh 2s 1982-2007, Magnepan mg1cs 1987-2006, and B&W P6 1997-2006 and my current newer generation OHMs and Dynaudio monitors replaced all three ~ 2007-present.

I have owned Maggies as well, MG-1's that were hot-rodded, and a couple pairs of MMG's. I have spent a lot of time with 1.6's, and have heard the 1.7's a few times. Not the same as living with them of course, but I still have a pretty good idea of their capabilities. I still own a pair of MMG's and like Marty, think they are an awesome value. In a smaller room you can get away with them without a sub, if the total lack of bass doesn't bother you.

In my room, I attempted to get a pair of Velodyne subs to integrate with my MMG's and eventually gave up. It was total frustration to get the sound quality that I wanted, and in the end, preferred the MMG's on their own. But then, I wanted a bit more, I wanted to have some "meat on the bones".

I have had a pair of Ohm Walsh 3/3000's(I had previously owned Walsh 2's years ago) for over a year now, and they gave me everything I was looking for, imaging/staging that in some ways to me is better than the Maggies, more "live" if you will. Also, I have image height that is more correct and natural than most speakers, especially smaller mini-monitors, but very similar to Maggies. The Ohm midrange is as good as the Maggies, and I am often stunned by just how good John has voiced these speakers. Also, I got the bass and "meat on the bones" that I was looking for. That was the icing on the cake to me.

The great thing is that I get all this without the downsides to the placement/listening position with the Maggies. I don't have that head-in-vice postion in my room anymore, the Ohm's just give that nice soundstage really no matter where you are sitting. For me, that is a big plus, because I don't have my speakers in a dedicated listening room that I once had.

They are to me a "real world" speaker, one that definately will respond to better electronics and speaker placement, but one that doesn't kill the musical capabilities if you don't spend every last ounce of effort(or tons of money for electronics) for those things. Personally, I would rather spend my time listening to music than tweaking anyway!

I really still love the Magnepans, they do a lot of really good things, they just make great music. I never thought I would have another speaker that could-or would take their place. The Ohm 3/3000 has done just that. They make even better music for me in my room. As always, I recommend giving them a try, hard to beat John's in-home trial policy. Enjoy the music! Tim

I would agree with all of the replies above, although I have not had much experience with planars.

However, the OP, IMHO, is wrong on the image placement issue. My Walsh 2000s create extremely solid and tangible images of both instruments and voices, throughout the soundstage. This was one of the more surprising aspects of this speaker when I first installed them.

'My Walsh 2000s create extremely solid and tangible images of both instruments and voices, throughout the soundstage. "

Yes, I would say the same applies to my Super Walsh 2 100S3s and OHM F 5S3s.

They are not overly fussy about placement compared to otehr designs, however good placement is definitely required for best results in this aspect.

They do this better than Maggies ever did for me when I owned them or when I hear them at dealers as well these days.

Also easier than Maggies to locate optimally, as has also been indicated. Difficulty with placement in my current room was a major reason I had to go in a different direction than Maggie.

Has anyone attempted to position BOTH Ohm Walsh's and Maggie's in some kind of mutual configuration? Is the question heresy? Is it heterodoxy?