How do Ohm Walsh speakers compare to Maggies?


I definitely do not like box sound and enjoy my Maggie 1.7's very much.

However, I keep hearing all the good things about Ohm Walsh speakers. I also have been advised by Ohm Acoustics that "our sound has the same "boxless" qualities of the Maggies (when listening in the Maggies sweet-spot) with a much wider Sweet-Sweep and more extended deep bass with our mono-pole vented systems".

Has anyone heard larger sized Maggies (1.6's or 3.6's) as well as the larger sized Ohms (4's or 5's) to be able to make some comments regarding the similarities or differences between the two products?
dsper
I have a few questions about Ohm Walsh Talls. How sensitive are these speakers to placement near a rear wall? Do they require more than say 18"? How about the sweet spot, is it large, meaning do I have to break out a tape measure to position my chair just right? (I'm not that kind of listener). I'm the kind of guy that sits off axis so I can be closer to a lamp and read. Once in awhile I'll move my chair to a more optimal location but not often. I like my music to sound fantastic and I have a decent system with a Hegel H200 integrated but I haven't been overly thrilled with my Harbeths. I also have a nice REL B2 which I hate to have. Ages ago I had B&W DM602 speakers and a NAD integrated and never needed a sub.
Donjr, the Ohm MWT's as well as all the talls, are very easy overall to position, and they would work fine from around a foot or so from the wall behind them. I tended to like to position them about as wide apart as the distance I was seated from them, providing this distance isn't so far as to make the middle staging fall apart. For the most part, they are easy to position and don't suffer from the same room dependencies that other speakers have.

I had a pair of them for a few years along with OW3XO's upgraded to 3000 series drivers. I often enjoyed the MWT's just as much if not more so than the 3000's. I don't know why, but there is something really special about the smaller Ohms. They get the midrange just right, but then all of Johns speakers do a fabulous job of just playing music.

As is typical of Ohm in general, the sweet spot is wide and does not require that typical seated position in the middle or head in vise like Maggie's etc. a very livable, real world speaker in my opinion.

Your Hegel gear would also work fabulously with the Ohms, plenty of current drive and grunt, good choice there! Enjoy! Tim
Frazeur1 summed the MIcroTalls up pretty well. I actually went from MWT's to a pair of Harbeths, and in my room I'm much happier. But that's in my listening room. I still always recommend Ohms - one thing to add, as easy as the MWT's are to place, they like a somewhat (not overly) damped room. Or I should say, a room that isn't overly live. Other than that, they're easy to place.
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.
I had Ohm MWT's and then 1000's for awhile a number of years ago. I'd second what was said about room damping. My room at the time was very, very lively (hardwood floors and no carpet!) and I think that the sonics may have suffered as a result. In particular, I found the high end lacking in resolution... again, I think this may have been due to the reflective surfaces in the room.
As I've often said in the past, either the pseudo-omni (pseudo only because the drivers are damped in the back to minimize near wall reflections) does it for you or it doesn't. If you love the huge, enveloping sound stage (which I did) then you may be utterly enchanted. If you want mini-monitor-like image specificity, then you may be (as I was) frustrated after awhile. But I totally get why people who adore them feel that way.
One other thing: John Strohbeen is a prince among men and will take good care of you, and you can't beat the in home audition deal.
Good luck!