How do Ohm Walsh speakers compare to Maggies?

Marty hit it pretty good.

a different kind of "open" imaging compared to Maggie with more weight, impact or "meat on the bones".

I had original OHM Walsh 2s 1982-2007, Magnepan mg1cs 1987-2006, and B&W P6 1997-2006 and my current newer generation OHMs and Dynaudio monitors replaced all three ~ 2007-present.

'My Walsh 2000s create extremely solid and tangible images of both instruments and voices, throughout the soundstage. "

Yes, I would say the same applies to my Super Walsh 2 100S3s and OHM F 5S3s.

They are not overly fussy about placement compared to otehr designs, however good placement is definitely required for best results in this aspect.

They do this better than Maggies ever did for me when I owned them or when I hear them at dealers as well these days.

Also easier than Maggies to locate optimally, as has also been indicated. Difficulty with placement in my current room was a major reason I had to go in a different direction than Maggie.

Yes, I have if I understand the question correctly.

I have found that each has very different dispersion patterns (bidirectional versus pseudo-omni) so not likely exact same configuration will work best for both.

" 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.

One or two 2x2 acoustic wall panels on side wall prime reflection point based on your listening position will go a long way if room is too lively.

Hardwood floors and floors in particular can interact quite a bit with the bottom ported OHM Walsh speakers for sure, more so than other designs. At least that is what I find with my models that use older refurbished cabinets with no plinth underneath. They sound totally different on my home's foundation level floor than on upper levels. Other aspects of their interactions with rooms is less unique.

I've had older Walsh 2s on wood floors on a couple of occasions over the years and found the sonic effects to be quite significant.

The solution is to place them on a more massive platform of some sort to help minimize the low frequency acoustic energy that gets transmitted to the floor. A fairly easy and inexpensive tweak. Most newer Walsh cabinets have a wood plinth underneath which should help quite a bit our of the box in most cases.