Planars/ Electrostats benefits over box speakers?

"Planars have a backwave that, because it arrives later than the front output of the speaker, aid the ear/brain system in improving sound source location; IOW imaging and depth. "

All speakers have a backwave. Its more a matter of what frequencies are contained in the backwave and the magnitude. Planars have more of both than most box designs. Omnis also have more of both and also have a more 360 degree radiation pattern as opposed to a simple backwave firing 180 degrees in the opposite direction only.

The omni 360 degree dispersion pattern is more like what occurs when sound is generated in real life. IMHO, omni presentation is more realistic/lifelike in general as a result, but planars are a step in that direction compared to most forward firing box designs.

The wvefront generated by an omni is also phase coherent in all directions which results in a very coherent/natural sound.

Planar backwave is not in phase with forward firing wave. As a result, planars can have very holographic imaging when set up right but it does not necessarily sound coherent and natural like an omni. Its like listening to a gong strike. Very holographic and impressive with lots of sound everywhere but I find I do not enjoy planars nearly as much as I used to when I hear them now that I am acclimated to very high quality omni sound. The coherency is just not there. Except for things that radiate sound like a gong. :^)

"Planar backwave is not in phase with forward firing wave. As a result, planars can have very holographic imaging when set up right but it does not necessarily sound coherent and natural like an omni."

I don't know if you've ever tried it, but putting some type of room tuning product right behind the panel helps a lot.

Zd what's behind the speakers and distance to it certainly matters and worth tweaking for owners but I've moved on to omnis and not looking back anymore

I use to own a pair of Mirage M3's (Omnis)circa late 80's, that were very good at putting out a huge deep presentation, very detailed and dynamic with the McIntosh 300w/ch amp. I miss that sound, very wife un friendly though. I regretted the day I sold them. But O well, lesson learned! (don't let your wife make you sell your monoliths) Since then I have moved on to a conventional box speaker and I really like them as well :-) Maggies never grabbed me the way the M3's did, I will say.

Thanks again to those who responded, especially "Almarg" who always provides valuable technical information.
Yes, Al. I still have the Rogue Sphinx which has performed excellently over the year since I bought it.

To a degree I am still chasing my tail about speakers, but at a reduced pace which means I might give up. I am trying to find a smaller, slimmer speaker just as potent as the AZ Adagios. (BTU, I am using Grover Huffman speaker cable which is very good, and better in many areas of sound than the Audio Art SC-5. The GH's offers good balance and excellent bass)

But back to the focus of the thread: Maggies, even the new .7 would overwhelm the listening area of 12X14. As you mentioned, Maggies need power, and I was also told before, they have a inconsistent impedance to amp ratio which could spell trouble for the Rogue class D amp. Nevertheless, the M-L's EM-ESL might be the better and more practical choice. The ML Theos are too big and would create a nuclear meltdown on the homefront( which is now in Los Angeles). Member bpd24 recommended the Eminent Technology 8B, so I might take look and listen

On another related speaker issue, the Dynaudio Excite 16, or the Reference DeCapo 3A BE could be contenders if I should to go with a monitor speaker. Cheers to all!!