How do Ohm Walsh speakers compare to Maggies?

I used to own Maggie 3.5s and they were great...if the room allowed them to be, which my current room does not. Room corrected subwoofers are mandatory in this space, as far as I'm concerned. So....

I currently own Ohm 100s and Maggie MMGs, both of which I use with subwoofers (in a rotation). The little Maggies are terrific (and at $600/pr, a ridiculous value, IMHO), but the Ohms get 95+% of my listening hours.

They may both be "boxless" sounding, but omnis like the Ohms just sound quite different from planars (and anything else, for that matter). Imaging from the two is very different, with Ohms providing unique (in my experience) weight to dramatically localized instruments. Both planars and minimonitors can do the location part pretty impressively in their own way (perhaps localizing sources even more precisely than the Ohms), but the "weight" (meat on the bones?) is solely an omni thing, IME.

In the end, I prefer the omni presentation, but both speakers are outstanding overall performers: detailed, open, and pretty neutral tonally. I'm sure that some would prefer the planars.

Really it's down to personal taste on this one. Both are very good choices, but I'm pretty sure that most people will come down hard one way or the other; some easily prefering the omni approach and others the planar.

Marty

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.

Per my above post, I rotate Ohm and Maggies in the same system.