Are Ohm-Walsh micros and 1000 series disrespected because of omni-directional design??

On most material, I find that the imaging/staging from the Ohms is unusually convincing.  Placement in space is specific enough that sources can easily be located and the spread across the room, between and beyond the speakers, is continuous in way that feels very organic to me.  Further, there's a sense of weight and body to those localized images that strikes me as unusually natural sounding (vis a vis designs using narrower dispersion patterns).  I never quite understood this criticism of omnis.  It's even less appropriate to the MBL speakers, which (tho they have tonality issues to my ear) are about as SOTA in this area as anything I've ever heard.

I can't resist being the devil's advocate re this forum...

I like omnis.  Having heard the original Ohm's decades ago, I was enthralled by what I heard.  Never could afford a pair, never had the space to live with them either.
However...the current Ohm's are not a true Walsh radiator.  They are a pleasant experience and a good affordable line of speakers.
Google Walsh speakers.  Look at the 'images of..' page.  You will see amidst the pics the original Ohms, with their conical elements.  You will also see the current Ohms as well.  If one keeps looking, you might notice a pic of what's UNDER the cylindrical mesh under the grille.
It's an inverted speaker; likely carefully chosen or design, but fairly typical.
But it's NOT a truncated cone as in the originals.
There is a big difference in that.  The Walsh patent goes into why and how.

I've been engaged in DIY'ing Walsh radiators for my own bemusement for awhile now, 'spoofing' a slightly larger version of the DDD driver used in the German Physiks units.  They're not 'perfect'....yet.  But, having heard the 'new' Ohms as well as the 'old' Ohms, I'm pleased with what I've been able to accomplish so far.  Not 'audiophile' quality....yet.  But I spend more of my time of late listening to my 'steampunk speakers' (a friend's observation, which actually tickles me) than my 'regular' speakers, 'warts' and all.

The new Ohms are nice speakers.  I will not speak negatively of them, as they fill a niche.  HHR offers an updated version of the original design, and I believe they appear at some shows.  HHR is a true Walsh unit.  Both concerns are 'web-only' companies.

And then there's MBL.  Omnis about as far as current tech allows.  They're supposed to be fantastic.  And at their price, they'd better be.

I'll carry on with what I'm doing. *S* 

Jim,

Your observation is on point.  The current Ohms are less true to the original Walsh design than are the HHRs.  Just one question:

What makes you think that that is a good thing (for HHR)?

BTW, I've never heard the HHR.  For all I know, it blows away the Ohms.  I just don't assume that that's necessarily true.  Particularly on the basis that you've identified.  John S's variation is certainly less expensive to produce.  It's also less fragile.  Beyond that, you'd need to do a side by side to determine which design you prefer.  Outside of Mapman (and John Strohbeen), I'm not sure who is on a position to make that judgement.

sunnyjim,

I own the Ohm-Walsh 5000 so I cannot make a direct comparison with the Micros or the 1000s. Is the sound "...around the listener....not distinct or detailed...kind of amorphous or nonspecific in imaging or sound staging"? No, not if set-up correctly and I don't find that proper placement is difficult to achieve.

I'll not repeat in so many words what I think have been accurate descriptions of how the Ohms present music than have already been made by Map, martykl, polarin, and bondmanp. Each, in their own way, has done an masterful job of describing their experiences.

I agree with many of the comments above.

• Most apt for me, which is why I will always keep them, is their being described as having a "sociable soundstage".  I rarely sit still and listen to an entire record.  I appreciate the fact that I can get up and move around and the soundstage does not completely collapse. 
• I do enjoy I can move quite a ways to either side and still have a very "organic" presentation with remarkably "solid, stable imaging".
• I can sit with my wife and we both agree the music has a "sense of weight and body".  You'll not have that experience with Maggies - at least for the both of you. 
• It is definitely has  "non-fatiguing sound" which is very important to me.  I don't want speakers dictating the kind of music I need to listen to enjoy the experience.  If that were true, I would have to throw away a lot of my music .  And yes, I get as much detail as I need.
  

I'll chime in here because my very fist speakers were Ohm L's, (one of the classic bookshelf speakers of the seventies)  because I was an Ohm fan back in the day, I did have a chance to listen to several of their Walsh models.  They were very open airy speakers, that by today's standards would be paired with a sub woofer.  Nothing bad about the sound otherwise. The sound was somewhat like a electrostatic, in that you could walk around the speaker and  still feel, and hear the sound stage.