How do Ohm Walsh speakers compare to Maggies?

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.

Having owned 3 sets of Maggies,(MMG's, 10.1's w/sub and 1.5's)and currently Ohm Walsh 3's I feel compelled to chime in... Most of what s been posted I agree with but I feel one other aspect needs addressing and that is musical taste. If your tastes run towards Jazz or softer rock like Steely Dan then Maggies are very hard to top. Their tone and clear as a bell presentation is something to behold. I've had many non-audiophile friends listen to my former Maggies and simply sit in astonishment at their presentation.

However, if you like all kinds of music (and movies) then Ohm's could be your ticket. I stumbled across a pair of Walsh 3's locally on CL and thought wow, I haven't heard Ohm's in probably 25 years. The guy threw on my Steely Dan CD "Everything must go" and I was astonished, the sound was everywhere, so I kept switching CD's, from Zepplin to Patricia Barber and I was simply amazed at how much clean, coherent full range sound I was hearing. Well I couldn't run to the ATM fast enough. However, the best part was getting them home and my wife does her familiar eye roll and I tell her "just wait" to which she smirks, so anyway I get them hooked up and she's like "Damn, where's all that sound coming from?"

Well she's never sat in the sweet spot in our family room but the treble on Ohm's is present pretty much everywhere so she literally was hearing the full spectrum of music for the first time. I hate to say it but Ohm's are kind of an audiophile's lifestyle speaker. Some may consider that a put down of sorts but not to me, when you're ready to get off the speaker merry go round I can't think of a better all round speaker to do it.

Zeljoh,

To amplify on Mapman's comments, the original Walsh designs used exotic cones that were very expensive to manufacture and were SPL limited. The current drivers are more conventional, cheaper to build and go louder. Some believe that SQ was better with the exotic cones (Dale Harder still makes a speaker using this approach), others feel that the difference isn't really significant

I have minimal experience with the older designs, so I can't comment either way on a comparison. I do like the new Ohms tho.

I appreciate these responses as I'm looking for my next pair of speakers. Ohm is definitely on my short list. As buying speakers today is pretty much an act of faith with so few B&M's I've been doing my due diligence in reading as much as I can find. I've come across just a few of these "criticisms" and wasn't sure how to rectify the difference of opinions. In one case, the author expressed significant "disdain" for the newer models. You folks have helped a lot. Thanks!