How do Ohm Walsh speakers compare to Maggies?

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!

I've had Ohm Fs back in the day and they were good at what they did. Took some power to get them to light up however.
I do not care for the current Ohm speaker with the poly/plastic driver(s) (upgrade)(!).

They just sound, well, plastic. Just not the same, sorry.

If you're gonna try the Ohms, make sure you can return them.

You would do much better with these IMO. http://www.hhr-exoticspeakers.com/HHRabout.htm

I have a few questions about Ohm Walsh Talls. How sensitive are these speakers to placement near a rear wall? Do they require more than say 18"? How about the sweet spot, is it large, meaning do I have to break out a tape measure to position my chair just right? (I'm not that kind of listener). I'm the kind of guy that sits off axis so I can be closer to a lamp and read. Once in awhile I'll move my chair to a more optimal location but not often. I like my music to sound fantastic and I have a decent system with a Hegel H200 integrated but I haven't been overly thrilled with my Harbeths. I also have a nice REL B2 which I hate to have. Ages ago I had B&W DM602 speakers and a NAD integrated and never needed a sub.