Are Ohm Walsh's a step up from Martin Login Electro Motion ESL's

Hey Doug you know the Ohm Walsh are not true Omni right? If they were definitely not in corners. But they are designed to go closer to walls than many. Still I have never landed on a corner placement with my Ohms by choice . Can work but may not be optimal placement for them . In general Ohm Walsh are easy to place for good results but there is always still such a thing as optimal placement if possible in one’s particular case.

Big difference between ohm and ML dispersion being just one. Both are good speakers subject to preference and what works best in each case. So I would be cautious about using the term "a step up". Either might do very well if set up properly. The ohms clearly solve the sweet spot problem though versus ml. Trying to play with toe in or no toe in is a good idea always.

See this diagram that shows dispersion pattern of Ohm Walsh CLS driver and how levels are attenuated in wall facing directions to avoid early reflections and allow placement closer to walls and corners. 
 

Martin Logans- Narrow sweet spot, excellent imaging and transperancy. However they compress at volume. Very coherant, until the woofer takes over.

Current Ohm’s - Huge Sweet Spot, flat out do not compress, extremely coherant, nice imaging, but not as precise as the ML’s. Huge soundstage (if set-up right)

Current OHM’s actually do best in the live end of a room, they do fine near corners, jammed in a corner isn’t optimal, but where you have your speakers they will work fine. In many ways they do best set-up "opposite" of many traditional speakers.

The OHM’s will be a very different sound than the ML’s, though both have excellent midrange coherance.

When I had my Ohm’s (which I enjoyed a great deal). I actually felt they sounded best without bass traps in the front corners (though I’ve decided all speakers sound best in my room without the traps in the front corners, only the rears). But I also felt they sounded way better without my GIK panels at the first reflection points, though I did leave them up at the second reflection points.

Yet, where they were placed was darn near the same spot all of my speakers sound best. (sure, a bit of movement back and forth etc, but generally in my room most speakers sound best in the same area. Most rooms do)

To your original question - better is subjective. They will certainly be different. Better... that is all up to what you decide you like.

I have absorption panels on walls at first reflection points with my larger Ohms which are highly tuned in. Smaller ones in family room sound great with no special treatments. I would assert Ohms are hard to beat for easy placement for good sound but still respond highly to tweaking if the goal is to get them totally dialed in. Ymmv in regards to setup and how much time you spend to get them totally dialed in.

mapman, yes, that's why I stated true omni as problematic. He could make a quasi-omni work, but still it's not ideal. I concur with there not being a clear step up transitioning from small ESL to small omni. He could force the issue, but has a wall all along one side versus open on the other which might slaugter the soundstage. Who knows how much that would screw up a pair of omni speakers. Imo it would be the least favored genre of speaker to use for that location. 

You iknow I'm not anti-omni; I have the Walsh Model F running now along with the Legacy XTREME XD Subs. Maybe it's just me, but they sound very good with nostaliga music from the 70's.