Ohm Walsh 2000 vs MMG vs Vandersteen 2ce Sig?

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.

Good response Map, I would tend to pretty much agree with most of your ratings. I would probably put the MMG/Ohm's about the same in regards to low volume listening. But maybe I am being too picky there.

The interesting comparison is with my MWT omni's and the MMG. It is amazing how they are probably more alike than they are different. I do enjoy them both, but if I had to live with only one of them, my nod would probably go to the Ohm's for a bit more money.

Enjoy the music! Tim

Fraz,

Yes, I think mmg and MWTs is the best apples/apples comparison in the mmg price range.

In a more nearfield listening scenario in a typical room, or in a smaller room, I think the OHMs and mmgs would tend to even out more at low listening levels. But I do think Maggies do excel at this in general, so I give them a slight nod.

I have Triagle monitors that are in the same league as Magnepans I owned earlier at low volume. I am quite content listening to these at lower volumes. But for serious listening at any volume, the OHMs are still my first choice in general.

My Dynaudio monitors are not radically different than the OHMs in terms of tonal balance and overall strengths, but their weakness, though marginal, is doing large scale music with authority and impact. Other than that, I could probably live alone with just these as well at least in a smaller room if I had to.