Ohm Walsh 2000 vs MMG vs Vandersteen 2ce Sig?

I can comment on OHM series 3 (the last versions prior to current X000 series) and mmg. Most I have heard who have the latest seem to confirm X000 series to be an "evolutionary but not revolutionary" improvement.

The biggest discriminating factors:

If you care about the lowest octaves you'll need a sub with teh Maggies.

Part of the musical experience for me is to be able to "feel" the music when needed. This is where the dynamic OHM design will slay the Maggies. A sub with mmgs will help but still not the same thing.

OHMs are much easier to place in most rooms for excellent results than Maggies. That is the prime reason why I ended up replacing my Maggies with the OHM 5s.

The Maggies are champs at low volumes. So are my Triangle monitors. The OHMs are good but not exceptional in this regard. They excel at louder, more realistic volumes with proper amplification where they can hang with many of the best I have heard at any price.

In terms of cost, mmgs are perhaps the best sound value out there but you do not get the low end or "meatr on the bones" that you might want or be used to with good dynamic designs.

The best value with teh OHMs comes with purchasing the latest drivers on older refurbed cabinets. OHM also does run sales periodically and you can get up to 40% discount from trade ins of older OHMs with cabinets in refurbishable condition (up to 2 pair) last time I checked. I was able to take advantage of all these cost benefits together even to get my OHM 5s for an extremely good price. I

Ratings for OHM series 3 and mmg on a 1-10 scale for the areas requested:

mmg speed - 9
OHM speed - 8

mmg dynamics - 6
OHM dynamics - 9

mmg tonality - 8
OHM tonality - 8

mmg texture - 8
OHM texture - 8

mmg detail - 8
OHM detail - 8,

mmg tranparency - 8
OHM transparency - 9,

mmg extension - 6
OHM extension - 9

mmg sound stage - 7
OHM sound stage - 8

Take these kinds of numeric ratings with a grain of salt though. An 8 to me leaves little to be desired, but not perfect. Also identical scores in a signel category does not mean teh two are the same in this regard. Each does things differently and ratings are highly subjective as a result.

I teng to agree with Martykl that the omni sound is a unique thing. If you take to its unique presentation, which I find more live-like, you will probably never look back again at other designs. OR you may not in which case your preferences lie elsewhere.

I have never heard any OHM Walsh models I have owned be "strident" in the top end at any volume. In fact, quite the opposite. All OHM Walshes I have heard are inherently quite relaxed on teh top end compared to most others.

I will point out that choice of amplifier, source, and even ICs can make a major difference in how the OHMs sound (they are most "transparent" in this regard), so I might see where some combos might come off more that way. Of course, we all have different ears as well, so hard to say how that factors in. Not to mention room acoustics....

One other discriminating factor worth mentioning is that Maggies are inherently more tube amp friendly and many might say they score best with a tube amp. OHMs are not tube amp friendly in lieu of a sub, perhaps, and require high power and high current SS amplification to reach their potential alone.

Google search for "real music" comes up with:

Real Music

at the top of the list.

Maybe, just maybe... :-)

I would like to hear some of that music on my OHMs though!

Interesting to me that some experience limits in regards to loudness with the OHMs.

I have not found this to be the case with either my 5s or 100s series 3 in their respective sized rooms at least, even off the 500w/ch Bel Canto ref1000m's I currently use, which push them up to levels beyond anything I would dare prior.

Due to their relative low efficiency, I have found the amp to be the limiting factor in regards to volume, not the OHMs. I listen to all music types from metal to big band to symphony as loud as I can go to get to what seems to match live performance levels with no signs of stress or breakup. The sound just keeps expanding with no noticeable duress until I finally stop at levels that seem lifelike for whatever happens to be playing.

OHMs do have essentially the same sound from model to model. Larger models and juicier amps are needed to get the most possible out of a larger room.

I would agree though that OHMs are very sensitive to room acoustics. Rooms that are exceedingly lively, like our sunroom with tile flooring, three walls of windows and cathedral ceiling, will sound much different and less balanced likely than similar sized, less lively rooms, like my office directly below for example. But then again,I hear similar effects with other speakers I use in the same rooms, including my small Dynaudio monitors. If I had to chose just one speaker, even in the lesser rooms, it would still be the OHMs. If I were willing to do extensive treatments in a lesser room in order to tame the acoustics completely, I would go with more traditional directional designs to simplify the task, not omnis, nor planars.

Fraz,

Yes, I think mmg and MWTs is the best apples/apples comparison in the mmg price range.

In a more nearfield listening scenario in a typical room, or in a smaller room, I think the OHMs and mmgs would tend to even out more at low listening levels. But I do think Maggies do excel at this in general, so I give them a slight nod.

I have Triagle monitors that are in the same league as Magnepans I owned earlier at low volume. I am quite content listening to these at lower volumes. But for serious listening at any volume, the OHMs are still my first choice in general.

My Dynaudio monitors are not radically different than the OHMs in terms of tonal balance and overall strengths, but their weakness, though marginal, is doing large scale music with authority and impact. Other than that, I could probably live alone with just these as well at least in a smaller room if I had to.

"Are these the same brands or have they come a long way since the 90's?"

Same brands. Similar designs.

OHM has evolved since the 90's to keep competitive and retain appeal. They have been sold direct only now since some time in the EARLY TO MID 90's I believe and also still provide support and upgrade paths including trade-ins for every speaker they have ever made over their 40 year or so existence, which is rare.

Can't speak for Bose other than its fair to say they have diversified and do a lot more than just make speakers.

AF,

Have you heard both properly refurbished Fs say and latest OHM X000 line to compare?

If so, I would be very interested in your assessment.

Also if you have heard Dale Harder's modern takes on the A or F for comparison? These are priced not too far beyond the most expensive current OHMs, although I believe Dale Harder runs a very new and not well known operation.

Its true larger Maggies are more comparable pricewise, but in terms of size, mmg and Walsh 2000 is a fair comparison, if that matters.

Maggies must be placed further away from rear wall in general for best results and that can be a problem for many, especially those wanting to fit larger Maggies into a room.

That was the problem I had with my older Maggies that my larger and more expensive OHM 5s replaced. The Maggies were larger (taller mostly), less expensive yet impossible to place properly and practically in my current room.

I had them in my prior house for years without a problem, so the room and its usage is really a big factor.

"I will give you Ohms are better on hard rock, but on REAL musis MMg will smoke them."

Agree about the OHMS for rock and pop music.

That mmgs will smoke them on other forms is more debatable.

ALso there are larger and smaller OHMs all with similar sound for various size rooms, You really can't fairly compare mmgs with an entire line designed to scale up as needed to deliver similarly good sound in all room sizes. Larger Maggies versus larger OHMs would be a more valid comparison IMHO.

In general, I think OHMs will hold the advantage over Maggies in regards to macrodynamics. So if the music benefits from having really good slam and meat on the bones, especially at higher volumes, the OHMs win. That's what led me to replace my long time Magnepans with my current OHMs.

Other than that, I really think which sounds better will depend largely on the overall setup including accounting for room acoustics. The two are both very transparent, yet radically different in design and will sound different accordingly, but either when tuned in optimally can perform exceptionally well in most other regards. Which sounds better in any particular setup will likely depend on so many other factors, that it is a wash in regards to which is inherently "better".

The only thing else I would say is that I am personally a big fan of the Walsh driver approach due to its ability to make recordings sound more "real" or "lifelike". ALong with that, is perhaps the converse that recordings sound less like what most people are used to hearing with recordings perhaps with the OHMS? In that case, Maggies and even other more conventional box design speakers might have the advantage, with the Maggies occupying perhaps more of a middle ground in general (but not always) between the typical sound of a recording and sounding more "live" or lifelike"

"Please define "REAL MUSIC" for me..."

The kind that mmg's smoke OHMs on? :-)