2. speakers
  3. 1298570459

How do Ohm Walsh speakers compare to Maggies?

I definitely do not like box sound and enjoy my Maggie 1.7's very much.

However, I keep hearing all the good things about Ohm Walsh speakers. I also have been advised by Ohm Acoustics that "our sound has the same "boxless" qualities of the Maggies (when listening in the Maggies sweet-spot) with a much wider Sweet-Sweep and more extended deep bass with our mono-pole vented systems".

Has anyone heard larger sized Maggies (1.6's or 3.6's) as well as the larger sized Ohms (4's or 5's) to be able to make some comments regarding the similarities or differences between the two products?
dsper
stanwal's avatar
stanwal
3,147 posts
 
They are very different judging by my memories. Planars excel in image placement, omnis in image size, by necessity these work against each other to some degree. While both may be good , and "non boxy" , the very different ways they create the sound really calls for a personal audition. Shanian speakers like the Compass or larger might also appeal to you if you like the omni sound.
martykl
3,578 posts
 
I used to own Maggie 3.5s and they were great...if the room allowed them to be, which my current room does not. Room corrected subwoofers are mandatory in this space, as far as I'm concerned. So....

I currently own Ohm 100s and Maggie MMGs, both of which I use with subwoofers (in a rotation). The little Maggies are terrific (and at $600/pr, a ridiculous value, IMHO), but the Ohms get 95+% of my listening hours.

They may both be "boxless" sounding, but omnis like the Ohms just sound quite different from planars (and anything else, for that matter). Imaging from the two is very different, with Ohms providing unique (in my experience) weight to dramatically localized instruments. Both planars and minimonitors can do the location part pretty impressively in their own way (perhaps localizing sources even more precisely than the Ohms), but the "weight" (meat on the bones?) is solely an omni thing, IME.

In the end, I prefer the omni presentation, but both speakers are outstanding overall performers: detailed, open, and pretty neutral tonally. I'm sure that some would prefer the planars.

Really it's down to personal taste on this one. Both are very good choices, but I'm pretty sure that most people will come down hard one way or the other; some easily prefering the omni approach and others the planar.

Marty
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,182 posts
 
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.
More to discover