I've owned Magnepan MMG's and 1.5's as well as, Vandersteen 2ce's, 2ce Sigs, 3a's & 3a Sigs.
The Maggies, as you would probably expect, are very quick, detailed, transparent and can throw a big soundstage. With enough power, they can be fairly dynamic. The low end extension isn't great, but it's tight and quick.
The Vandies, in my opinion, do everything well. Not the hyper detail you'll get from Maggies, but everything is there and they are very easy to listen to. My only issue with Vandersteen's, and the reason I eventually went to Gallo 3.1's, is I could never get that dynamic "slam" out of them. They were okay, just not quite what I wanted out of a speaker.
I hope this helps. Good luck. |
ha! pays to proofread. I listened to the 2ce Sig IIs today and they seemed to impart a thick texture to everything, lacked micro detail and had diffuse imaging. They were driven by Naim gear and a Rega CD player. I expect they'd be a good match with very lean sold state components, but, although my monoblocks are ss, they're voiced to sound like tubes and the rest of my system is tubed, so I'm skeptical they'd be a good match for me. |
MMG if you have the right room,Ohm if you don't.
Hint,most people don't. |
Pmboyd, this might get a little wordy, I have lived with MMG's and 2000's, I won't comment on the Vandy as I haven't lived with it. I think some of it all depends on what you value in the presentation and what is more important for you. Also, if you read about either of these speakers, you will find a fairly mixed opinion on them, most people either like them, or they don't.
I think that they both are very similar overall and do much of the same things and do it very well. For instance, I value image height, and soundstaging, both speakers do this very well, they both portray a very realistic stage, and the performers on that stage have a fairly realistic size to them, not miniature cutouts. Also, they both have a very good midrange/treble response, vocals, both female and male are extremely good on both speakers. I love percussion on both speakers as well. Visually, I think the Ohm's can vanish a bit more easily, the MMG's just a little bit more visually dominant if this matters.
I do think that the Maggies have a bit more bite on leading edge notes such as on acoustical guitar etc., whereas the Ohm can be a little softer. This can depend on how you set both speakers up, and how you listen to them-toe in/out, tweeters in/out.
With the Ohms, you can maybe get away without subs, with MMG's, the bass-or lack thereof can leave you wanting a bit more perhaps. I ended up going from Ohm 2000's to 3000's and it satisfied my bass desires in my room, while still retaining all that is good about the Ohm to begin with.
I do find the MMG's and Ohms to have very good dynamics, tonality, texture, where I think they begin to seperate a little is in detail somewhat. The Ohm compared directly to the MMG is maybe a bit more diffuse sounding, but to my ears, in a more natural way than even the MMG's, but to me it isn't a negative either way. The Maggie is just a more direct sound field, whereas the Ohm more or less spreads things around, not in un-natural way though. The MMG is more like listening to a small-box monitor without the box, and yet having this nice soundstage and image height. The Ohm, kind of a different animal altogether.
One thing that I love about the Ohm, is being able to have a soundstage that I don't have to find a small sweet-spot in which to have excellent results. The MMG is just a more head-in-vice listening area. You can more or less listen to the Ohm and have a great soundstage, even when listening almost to the very edge of one of the speakers, as long as you keep yourself within the confines of the left/right speaker. It is a very good speaker when you have several folks over for a listen, you can spread the Ohms apart a fairly good distance and have a very good soundstage, and every one will have basically the same results. The MMG, well, not nearly as good in that aspect.
MMG's take more care in setup, and also space required to get them to breathe and sound their best, but I do find them maybe not quite as tough as a lot of people say they are. With that being said, I recently was able to move my listening postion along a long wall, and this did take the MMG to another level, and I had thought the spot I had them in prior was very good. The Ohm is probably quite a bit less sensitive to setup, but you can be rewarded by taking your time and playing with positioning just like any other speaker. I just find them more "real world" in terms of placement/room required to get them to sound good.
I think both require a decent amount of power, and quality power to make them sing to their potential, although there are many people who have commented on this and use lower powered tube gear with good results, I myself do not know, I have always utilized solid state power around 200 wpc and they have always done well. I also feel both do require a bit of power to wake them up, again, your mileage may vary, depends on listening room size, how loud you like to listen etc.
I guess for me, I can live with either one(and do), they both do most things so very well, and don't do many things wrong, if much at all. If I had to kind of sum up my position on them, I would say this. The Ohm for me is just more fun to listen to, more when I just want to relax and listen to some music. The MMG is more of a tool for when I want to listen into the music, more detail etc. They both are detailed and fun, I just listen to each one or use each one a bit differently. They both really just make great music, and that is what I am after.
When you start looking at price, the MMG even new is hard to beat. The Ohm 2000, while a bit more, but if you factor in a sub purchase with the MMG, might be more of a wash. Both on the used market can be a bargain though, and both can be upgraded or repaired by the factory-or yourself if need be.
I don't know if any of this helps at all, I am sure if you look around and read some of the many threads on either one, you will gather a great deal of information. I know the Ohm MWT thread included quite a bit of information and comparisons between several different speakers and the Ohm's. Hope you find what you are looking-or listening for! Most of all, enjoy the music! Tim
|
Peter,
Good that you got a chance to check out the Vandy. I suspected that they'd satisfy your requirements for a "gentler" treble, per your last post, but evidently they represent too much of a good thing for your needs. Your reaction to the Vandy clarifies how you judge that particular sound. Incidentally, while many people (including me) like them a lot, I don't think you're alone in suggesting that the Vany leans that way on a relative basis. (I agree, but I have less issue with those qualities than you do - just my take on the specific design trade-offs.)
Given your response, I'd guess that the MMG might be your preference - provided you can get them to image to your satisfaction. As Schubert notes, that is highly room dependent.
I'm fairly confident that the Ohm will either please or displease on the basis of its spacial presentation. Relative to my VSM, I find the Ohm 100 audibly softer than Merlin on top, a bit "drier" thru the mids, and just a touch fuller below 100hz or so. I doubt you'd find this as obvious on first audition as the dramatic difference in spatial qualities between omnis and planars or dynamics.
I know that you were also thinking Merlin at one point, and my guess is that you'd find the Merlin strong in all the areas that you find the Vandy weak. That said, I can't speak to the octave to octave balance on the little Merlins, as I've only owned the floorstanders.
Good Luck,
Marty |
OHM makes great speakers but IMHO they are grossly overpriced. |
Really, Schubert? Based on what metric? |
I definitely don't think Ohms are overpriced... |
Obviously I can't say that the Vandy's weren't set up right or in an inappropriate room, but, I have heard them sound as you've suggested under such conditions. Now, they may just provide the sound you first heard elsewhere, but you might want to consider another audition somewhere else before writing them off. Based upon your opinion of the Vandy's so far, I'd suggest you consider Thiels. IMO, you have to move up the Maggie line to compete with the Vandy's 2's, i.e. Maggie 3 series. |
I'm a little confused, and I confess I'm not up on the latest models, which Magnepans are you referring to? MMGs would seem to be the latest version of the old SMG & SMGa models... if so, I think it's a bit odd to be comparing $500 planars with two $2500 boxed speakers! I'll assume you mean MG3.3s or similar.
Over the years I've had SMGa, Timpani 1d, MGII, and MGIIIa Maggies, as well as Ohm Walsh models ,3,& 4. No long term experience with Vandersteens, but I have listened to them quite a bit in other system. My feelings for Ohms is very strong, that's why I've been through so many (and still have a pair of 2s), but the do have one irritating characteristic... they have a relatively limited volume window where the dome tweeter, walsh mid, and ported bass gel. At low volumes they sound lifeless, at (very) high levels they can get a bit strident & loose coherence. At medium high listening levels (where I do tend to listen most) they are FANTASTIC! But try as I might, with all manner of equipment driving them, I still find it annoying to have the speakers sound so "dull" at low to moderate levels.
As for Maggies, I think they are the best bang for the buck in high end sound... IF you like panel speakers (I do - my main system is Quad ESL63 based).
Vandersteens have always struck me as very fine "conventional" speakers, perhaps as good of deal as Maggies, just with a different (read more dynamic) sound.
I don't know if this helps any in your choice, but that's what I've found between the three "contenders" you asked about.
Cliff |
Valuable observation, Frommerstop! Thanks for sharing your obviously deep experience with the Ohms. |
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. |
Good response Map, I would tend to pretty much agree with most of your ratings. I would probably put the MMG/Ohm's about the same in regards to low volume listening. But maybe I am being too picky there.
The interesting comparison is with my MWT omni's and the MMG. It is amazing how they are probably more alike than they are different. I do enjoy them both, but if I had to live with only one of them, my nod would probably go to the Ohm's for a bit more money.
Enjoy the music! Tim |
My Ohm 100s have about a full octave more bottom end than my MMGs - not so critical for me as I use subs - but a major delta between these designs. The Vandy 2s (don't own 'em, but have head 'em extensively) are similar to the Ohms in this regard, and have a bit more mid-bass "flesh", to boot.
All 3 designs stage typically of their dispersion. My own taste puts Ohm omnis well ahead of the pack, with the MMGs (properly set-up) just nosing the Vandy for 2nd place. The MMGs are probably most placement sensitive, Ohms the least so.
All 3 designs are reasonably revealing, but I find that the Ohms probably provide more detail than the other 2. However, they're also the "leanest" tonally and the least forgiving of less than ideal room/electronics/recordings.
The Ohms need to go to higher SPLs to sound dynamic, but they are limited in how loud they'll go before melting. Net result: the least flexible in terms of satisfying listening levels of the 3 choices here.
All 3 models offer IMHO terrific value, but the MMG is just an absolute steal.
My take, anyway.
Good Luck.
Marty |
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. |
I remember my dad and I doing an old ohm vs bose shootout years ago. I think the ohms were from crutchfield and the bose from a department store.
Are these the same brands or have they come a long way since the 90's? |
"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. |
Some people prefered the older OHM's with real Walsh drivers to the newer versions. |
Unfortunately, the earliest "pure" Walsh designs (models A & F) are no longer serviced by Ohm. They have made adapters for their newer "cans" to be mounted on the old cabinets, but that doesn't yield a very similar speaker.
I'm still wondering why it seems people here are comparing $599 Magnepans to $2500 dynamic speakers. Wouldn't it be more fair to compare models of similar price? Ohm's least expensive floor standing model is twice that much! ...and that's Factory Direct price! Magnepans will always be somewhat limited in dynamics compared to cone speakers with cabinets. Just like any other panel, their dynamics is a direct factor of area, and with such limited excursion, even a huge panel is going to "run out of wind" (making them sound "compressed") at very high peaks. My Tympani had over 16sqft of area per side, and even they had limits, but those limits were Very high... higher than I needed, so effectively for me just fine. My local Magnepan dealer happens to carry Vandersteen as well, that's where I've heard the 2ci most, and I've listened in on straight "shoot outs between MG20s, and Vandersteen 4s, and in that "living room" sized listening room, I don't think impact, nor dynamics were a limiting factor with either one! FWIW, The customer was an uncle of mine, and he ended up buying Vandersteen Quatros - he LOVES them.
Like I said before, I'm a big fan of the whole line of Walsh speakers, but I do think it's important that you consider competitive models, not just brand vs brand.
...also, to clarify my comment about Ohm's dynamic limit. I simply found the sound Quality suffered a bit (particularly in integration between mids & highs) at their highest levels. I don't think they are particularly "fragile", or likely to "melt down", and as long as you choose a model that will play in the volume range you find necessary, it isn't of too much concern.
Cliff |
Models "A" and "F" are the benchmark Ohm products.
Everything else pales in comparison. |
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. |
I owned F for almost 10 years; sold them to purchase Apogee Duetta Signature.
Have heard the new models; unremarkable IMO.
The A and F are Ohm's legacy. |
WOW! Thanks for that link, I was unaware of HHR. That's VERY cool, too bad they are as pricy as that, but if I were in the $10-20K speaker market, I'd sure give them a listen.
I remember auditioning Ohm Fs in the very early eighties... Ohm Acoustics had only just introduced the "Walsh 2" then. The sales manager for "Tec Hi-Fi" (the main Ohm dealer in those days) was a friend so I was able to take a pair of 2s and Fs home for a week end. I was extremely impressed, but thought they sounded a little rolled off at the top, and were really placement sensitive. I was using a Crown IC150, & two DC300s to drive them so volume wasn't an issue! I ended up buying AR9s instead, but at least I bought the Crowns from my Tec HI-Fi buddy. I ended up going through Walsh 2s,3s, then 4s through the eighties in second room systems, and I'm convinced the later models were/are true improvements over the originals in imaging, high end, and sensitivity. But there was something "magical" about the full range Walsh if you have a room perfectly set up for them, and enough juice to drive them!
Cliff |
I have owned both MMG and Older Vanderteen 2's. Its a no brainer for me Vandersteen all the way. |
I don't know if you guys know this but, Vandersteen speakers do requires of 100 hours of break-in period. I have the 2CE SIG II and, when I hooked it up for the first time I said, this doesn't sound as good as the demo at the Vandies dealership. Anyway, to make long story short, after 100 hours of usage, the 2CE Sig II became somewhat alive, the staging, transparecy, the clarity just happened. It is so musical and after going through lots of hours placing the 2CE Sig II in my room, wham! the bass got louder and very tight that I have to not use my subs anymore. SO, don't judge the speaker from what you hear unless you're listenning to a properly well broken-in and well placed/positioned Vandersteen. |
like mapman, I am an OHM fan, but I am a MAGGIE fan too. I just read about the vandersteen's and would like to own one since I am a speaker fanatic. My opinion is that all three have their strengths and weaknesses but it would be a HARD choice if you were to pick only one. It's sort of like trying to decide between TRIPLETS? Although they are from the same birth, they have their own personalities, and that is how i look at a well designed loudspeaker irregardless of price. I don't really like comparing speakers as to what is better, but rather what suits my taste. what I do not like is making a judgement on a product especially a good one without ever experiencing it. Being an owner of various ohm and magnepans, I do not prefer one over the other but tend to use the ohm's a bit more because of it's more universally adaptable for various applications be it stereo or home theater and not worry about room placements like you would a planar. There is one speaker that should be in this group and that is the ESS HEILs. I have them too and with the right equipment just like the other three, it brings audio nirvana to me and to like minded enthusiasts. |
MMG $699
MMG 1.7 2k
Shouldn't you compare it to a like priced speaker? The 1.6/1.7's are incredible speakers. Big jump from the MMG IMO |
Sthomas, I agree we should be comparing in the same price ranges, but the OP asked the question, and therefore some of us provided some input on the matter.
While the three speakers are not priced in the same ballpark(well, Ohm 2000/Vandersteens are close), it is a testament to just how good the MMG's as well as other "budget" speakers really are. I have lived with Ohm's and MMG's for some time now, and they are more similar than not. I can and do live with both of them quite easily.
Enjoy the music! Tim |
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 really like the Magnepans too. I remember I sold my Paradigm 100 v.3's because I tried out some MMG's. I thought they were better speakers all in all. I put $900 in my wallet after selling the Paradigms and keeping the MMG's for what I consider a more enjoyable speaker. Magnepans are truely awesome. If only we all had that dedicated theater room hidden away for large 1.7's, 3.7's. |
I agree, and also the funds to have the dedicated room and the 1.7/3.7's to boot! Not to mention the amplification and the....Oh well. Some things never end do they? Tim |
It has been awhile since I have trawled through some of the forums here, and was looking through this thread. Since the last time I posted on this matter, I have added a pair of Rel T-3 subs to my MMG's, which funny enough, brings the pricing right in line with a pair of Ohm MWT's. In this mode, the MMG's might have the edge in my listening room. This is the first time I have been able to get any sub to work well with the Maggies, and it is quite nice. With the exception of a still somewhat narrow sweet-spot compared to the Ohm's, the overall balance is maybe a bit better, and now with the bass thrown in.
I have also played around with the subs on the Ohm MWT as well, and have to say, this also is a very, very satisfying setup. Either one does it for me very nicely, and taking the subs into consideration on both pairs of speakers, really is a toss-up. They both have very similar qualities, and yet they each also have some things they do differently, some better, some worse.
I have always liked the way MMG's do acoustic guitar, they have that bit of leading edge bite, whereas the Ohm is maybe a bit more softer around the edges. The Ohm is bit more dynamic though on most other things in the way a typical cone-driver speaker tends to be. I know that almost sounds like a bit of a contradiction of sorts, but there you have it.
The MMG also seems to provide more of a wall of music-yet with depth and imaging, the Ohm more diffuse, but still in a very natural/realistic way. I guess it is all turnabouts and roundabouts.
I have always loved my MMG's, while certainly not perfect, with the addition of the subs, it has gone a long way to getting what I got out of my Ohm's. But I still love both for the positive things they do, and not many negatives really.
So much for my 2 cents. Enjoy the music! Tim |
MMG's are better than the other 2 and not by a little bit.
THE problem is that they are thought of "starter " speakers when they are really more "end" speakers in that they need the best of amps, pre's , and wire to do what they can , not to mention a lot of audio savy with room placement, none of which the average buyer of these has.
I've heard 50K systems which sound worse then my MMG system..
MMG
sound anchor stands(tilt to taste)
Byryston BP-6 or Modded PAS 3
Van Alstine synergy 550
MIT CVt2 IC's
Cambridge 740 CD
Analysis Plus Oval 12 SC (CRUCIAL, this THE SC for MMG)
Audio Zen Tsunami Power cords all around. |
this is an interesting discussion thread. Problem with the MMG is that Magnepan themselves describe the speaker as their intro product and that most owners will move up to their "better models" after experiencing the MMG. Doesn't exactly inspire me to purchase over a well developed and established product like the Ohm Walsh. |
Ladavid, well Ohm's, ehich I've had, are sure plug and play,MMG's are not for the faint of heart. |
I had MG12's - loved them and one of my audio regrets selling them. Never had Ohms though. |
I've owned MMG's and Vandy 1C's and while they both have their strengths the Ohm's for me are simply better all-rounders. The MMG's are very beguiling on Jazz and softer rock like Steely Dan but they make very little bass, are not very dynamic and just don't cut it with hard rock. I didn't own the bigger Vandys but the 1C's were a nice polite speaker that didn't do much wrong but ultimately just never drew me in.
My 25 year old Ohm 3's satisfy me across the board with whatever I throw at them. The best compliment I can give them is when they're playing I don't really listen to my equipment anymore I simply enjoy the music and I can enjoy it anywhere in the room. |
Not so, MMG will put out good bass, you just need an amp that will put over 300 watts a side into 4 ohms, 500 is even better.I will give you Ohms are better on hard rock, but on REAL musis MMg will smoke them. |
"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... |
"Please define "REAL MUSIC" for me..."
The kind that mmg's smoke OHMs on? :-) |
|
Google search for "real music" comes up with: Real Musicat the top of the list. Maybe, just maybe... :-) I would like to hear some of that music on my OHMs though! |
Mapman
Thanks I just went to real music
https://www.realmusic.com/
zoned out enjoyed sampler stillness.....
This is what real music is supposed to do touch us,
weather on Magies,Vandys,Ohms or computer speakers.
When you are in the moment its all that matters.
JohnnyR |
