Ohm Walsh 2000 vs MMG vs Vandersteen 2ce Sig?

I'm a little confused, and I confess I'm not up on the latest models, which Magnepans are you referring to? MMGs would seem to be the latest version of the old SMG & SMGa models... if so, I think it's a bit odd to be comparing $500 planars with two $2500 boxed speakers! I'll assume you mean MG3.3s or similar.
Over the years I've had SMGa, Timpani 1d, MGII, and MGIIIa Maggies, as well as Ohm Walsh models ,3,& 4. No long term experience with Vandersteens, but I have listened to them quite a bit in other system. My feelings for Ohms is very strong, that's why I've been through so many (and still have a pair of 2s), but the do have one irritating characteristic... they have a relatively limited volume window where the dome tweeter, walsh mid, and ported bass gel. At low volumes they sound lifeless, at (very) high levels they can get a bit strident & loose coherence. At medium high listening levels (where I do tend to listen most) they are FANTASTIC! But try as I might, with all manner of equipment driving them, I still find it annoying to have the speakers sound so "dull" at low to moderate levels.
As for Maggies, I think they are the best bang for the buck in high end sound... IF you like panel speakers (I do - my main system is Quad ESL63 based).
Vandersteens have always struck me as very fine "conventional" speakers, perhaps as good of deal as Maggies, just with a different (read more dynamic) sound.

I don't know if this helps any in your choice, but that's what I've found between the three "contenders" you asked about.

Cliff

Valuable observation, Frommerstop! Thanks for sharing your obviously deep experience with the Ohms.

I can comment on OHM series 3 (the last versions prior to current X000 series) and mmg. Most I have heard who have the latest seem to confirm X000 series to be an "evolutionary but not revolutionary" improvement.

The biggest discriminating factors:

If you care about the lowest octaves you'll need a sub with teh Maggies.

Part of the musical experience for me is to be able to "feel" the music when needed. This is where the dynamic OHM design will slay the Maggies. A sub with mmgs will help but still not the same thing.

OHMs are much easier to place in most rooms for excellent results than Maggies. That is the prime reason why I ended up replacing my Maggies with the OHM 5s.

The Maggies are champs at low volumes. So are my Triangle monitors. The OHMs are good but not exceptional in this regard. They excel at louder, more realistic volumes with proper amplification where they can hang with many of the best I have heard at any price.

In terms of cost, mmgs are perhaps the best sound value out there but you do not get the low end or "meatr on the bones" that you might want or be used to with good dynamic designs.

The best value with teh OHMs comes with purchasing the latest drivers on older refurbed cabinets. OHM also does run sales periodically and you can get up to 40% discount from trade ins of older OHMs with cabinets in refurbishable condition (up to 2 pair) last time I checked. I was able to take advantage of all these cost benefits together even to get my OHM 5s for an extremely good price. I

Ratings for OHM series 3 and mmg on a 1-10 scale for the areas requested:

mmg speed - 9
OHM speed - 8

mmg dynamics - 6
OHM dynamics - 9

mmg tonality - 8
OHM tonality - 8

mmg texture - 8
OHM texture - 8

mmg detail - 8
OHM detail - 8,

mmg tranparency - 8
OHM transparency - 9,

mmg extension - 6
OHM extension - 9

mmg sound stage - 7
OHM sound stage - 8

Take these kinds of numeric ratings with a grain of salt though. An 8 to me leaves little to be desired, but not perfect. Also identical scores in a signel category does not mean teh two are the same in this regard. Each does things differently and ratings are highly subjective as a result.

I teng to agree with Martykl that the omni sound is a unique thing. If you take to its unique presentation, which I find more live-like, you will probably never look back again at other designs. OR you may not in which case your preferences lie elsewhere.

I have never heard any OHM Walsh models I have owned be "strident" in the top end at any volume. In fact, quite the opposite. All OHM Walshes I have heard are inherently quite relaxed on teh top end compared to most others.

I will point out that choice of amplifier, source, and even ICs can make a major difference in how the OHMs sound (they are most "transparent" in this regard), so I might see where some combos might come off more that way. Of course, we all have different ears as well, so hard to say how that factors in. Not to mention room acoustics....

One other discriminating factor worth mentioning is that Maggies are inherently more tube amp friendly and many might say they score best with a tube amp. OHMs are not tube amp friendly in lieu of a sub, perhaps, and require high power and high current SS amplification to reach their potential alone.

My Ohm 100s have about a full octave more bottom end than my MMGs - not so critical for me as I use subs - but a major delta between these designs. The Vandy 2s (don't own 'em, but have head 'em extensively) are similar to the Ohms in this regard, and have a bit more mid-bass "flesh", to boot.

All 3 designs stage typically of their dispersion. My own taste puts Ohm omnis well ahead of the pack, with the MMGs (properly set-up) just nosing the Vandy for 2nd place. The MMGs are probably most placement sensitive, Ohms the least so.

All 3 designs are reasonably revealing, but I find that the Ohms probably provide more detail than the other 2. However, they're also the "leanest" tonally and the least forgiving of less than ideal room/electronics/recordings.

The Ohms need to go to higher SPLs to sound dynamic, but they are limited in how loud they'll go before melting. Net result: the least flexible in terms of satisfying listening levels of the 3 choices here.

All 3 models offer IMHO terrific value, but the MMG is just an absolute steal.

My take, anyway.

Good Luck.

Marty

Interesting to me that some experience limits in regards to loudness with the OHMs.

I have not found this to be the case with either my 5s or 100s series 3 in their respective sized rooms at least, even off the 500w/ch Bel Canto ref1000m's I currently use, which push them up to levels beyond anything I would dare prior.

Due to their relative low efficiency, I have found the amp to be the limiting factor in regards to volume, not the OHMs. I listen to all music types from metal to big band to symphony as loud as I can go to get to what seems to match live performance levels with no signs of stress or breakup. The sound just keeps expanding with no noticeable duress until I finally stop at levels that seem lifelike for whatever happens to be playing.

OHMs do have essentially the same sound from model to model. Larger models and juicier amps are needed to get the most possible out of a larger room.

I would agree though that OHMs are very sensitive to room acoustics. Rooms that are exceedingly lively, like our sunroom with tile flooring, three walls of windows and cathedral ceiling, will sound much different and less balanced likely than similar sized, less lively rooms, like my office directly below for example. But then again,I hear similar effects with other speakers I use in the same rooms, including my small Dynaudio monitors. If I had to chose just one speaker, even in the lesser rooms, it would still be the OHMs. If I were willing to do extensive treatments in a lesser room in order to tame the acoustics completely, I would go with more traditional directional designs to simplify the task, not omnis, nor planars.