How do Ohm Walsh speakers compare to Maggies?

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?

Yes, I have if I understand the question correctly.

I have found that each has very different dispersion patterns (bidirectional versus pseudo-omni) so not likely exact same configuration will work best for both.

Per my above post, I rotate Ohm and Maggies in the same system.

Mapman. You appear to be the/a resident "expert" on Ohm Walsh. I mean that in a complimentary way. As I have googled Ohm Walsh, I have come across some rather critical reviews/opinions. Suggestions that the "inside" driver is far from the original concept and is actually quite "cheap" nowadays and poorly made. Could you provide any insight to these opinions. Thanks. Great thing about Ohm Walsh is that John offers a very generous trial period.

" Suggestions that the "inside" driver is far from the original concept and is actually quite "cheap" nowadays and poorly made."

"Cheap" and "poorly" made comments have no basis other than audiophile snobbery.

Every OHm Walsh I have ever owned goes as loud and clear as amp driving them will allow. That is NOT cheap and poorly made.

There are many professional and other reviews of various OHM Walsh speakers out there that provide excellent accounts of the sound and sound quality, so I will not rehash all that here.

It is true that the CLS driver used today is a significantly different design than the original very wide (not full) range drivers used in original OHM A and F. This was done for very sound and practical reasons.

Benefits far outweigh disadvantages IMHO for most and the fact that the basic design (with minor refinements over the years that improve overall sound quality) has been around since the early 80's speaks for itself.

OHM CLS Walsh driver uses a dynamic driver in "Walsh" operating mode. Read up on Walsh drivers for more detail on what that is in regards to "wave bending" and how different from conventional pistonic dynamic drivers. CLS was designed to offload high frequencies above 7khz or so to a separate conventional operating tweeter (soft dome specifically) to extend response to typical 20khz and eliminate the practical shortcomings of the original "full" range (up to 16khz anyway) Walsh drivers as implemented in OHM A and F. Those are also well documented.

Original OHM A and F speakers were most unique and highly valued to this day by those familiar. That helps inject a lot of emotions into the discussion of merits of new versus old OHM Walsh.

If any other specific questions, I am always happy to discuss either here or via agon email privately.