How do Ohm Walsh speakers compare to Maggies?

I would agree with all of the replies above, although I have not had much experience with planars.

However, the OP, IMHO, is wrong on the image placement issue. My Walsh 2000s create extremely solid and tangible images of both instruments and voices, throughout the soundstage. This was one of the more surprising aspects of this speaker when I first installed them.

'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.

Has anyone attempted to position BOTH Ohm Walsh's and Maggie's in some kind of mutual configuration? Is the question heresy? Is it heterodoxy?

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.

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