What are the advantages of electrostatic versus floor speakers w/wo external drivers?


Are electrostatics considered the next level with a corresponding price bump, or just an alternative technology?

I've had floor standing speakers with tweeters and midranges on top of the box and others with all drivers inside it and found the only difference in listener positioning if you are right in between the speakers changing a record, the speakers with internal drivers are missing something.

The electrostatics I'ver heard have had sub woofers, which I guess would require an extra amp and crossover, and for a big enough room may be an ideal option. They seem to have a bigger, more open and detailed sound, but that may have been caused by the room size.

Just planning for the future....
sokogear
I'm a huge Martin Logan fan. There's a spectacular end to Beethovens 9th. The full orchestra and the choir and all 4 soloists at full throttle and from nowhere the piccolo sounds over them all. I want to be able to pick out the piccolo not just it's sound but in its physical position within the wall of sound. Electrostatics produce a holographic, 3D sound like no other. The advantage of the Logans is they have a panel plug an active base until. Best of both worlds 
Can't stand the sound comming from Electrostats, Hate that speaker line. I also hate that speaker line that has a  driver sitting on top the cabinet,, You know which lab i am refering to. 
So yeah big thumbs down for both designs. 
The perfect design is a MTM, Mid woofer + mid tweet + mid woofer. 
Best ever design.  All the bass you want, Full rich and glorious.
I owned Magnepan 3.5Rs with the true ribbon. Might have been happy in a much smaller room, but mine is ~ 20 x 40 x 12. I have 2 SVS powered subs (Plus and Ultra) but could never get them to interface smoothly

I also owned a bunch of box speakers, but most of the cost goes into the cabinet and especially stopping it from resonating, which has to affect the internal XOs: same problem with active speakers

What to do? OPEN BAFFLE. Emerald Physics makes excellent OB speakers with carbon fiber woofers and midranges that are concentric with polyester tweeters. Seamless, dynamic, capable of throwing an enormous 3D soundstage. Simply amazing and they are under 4ft high


My 3.4s play most music beautifully, except for deep bass, but you can get the 2,8s for that

hth
tweak1,

I suspect you’re right. I’ve yet to hear any electrostatics that sounded balanced. Some things were very good, open airy and expansive mids, but some very bad, bass balance, dynamics and timing.

Even the original Quad ESL57s didn’t work out for me, but maybe I didn’t know how to get the best out of them. I’d still like to hear some Magnepans or Martin Logan’s though.

As for box speakers, there does seem to be a discernible ceiling on performance with them. Most have bandwidth/ resonance/ crossover / dispersion / drive unit integration problems etc.

I feel that most of these issues are down to the way the bass is interacting with everything else. As you say, most of the cost goes into keeping the cabinet inert so that it doesn’t interfere.

On the other hand I’ve not heard the KEF Blades, B&W 803s or any of the almost universally well regarded Revel range.

When you read so many good things about Revel speakers it almost sets up an impossible ideal for them to match up to when you finally get to hear them.

Open baffles also seem to have the same problem as electrostatics in one regard - domestic acceptability. Probably explains why box speakers remain the norm despite their box issues which the other two don’t have.
sokogear, As with most things in audio, there is more "different" than there is "better or worse". E-stats fall into a category I like to call "light membrane drivers" which also includes AMTs, ribbons, planar (like Analysis Audio and Magnepan) and others. One physical or mechanical advantage (relative to transducers) is their light weight. Music happens in the time domain and amplitude domain with phase response contributing. As long as a driver is used within its designed frequency range, displacement limits and baffle configuration, and is tracking the input signal, there really is no "fast" or "slow" driver. If a driver can't do a reasonable job then it's either broken or junk. If a driver is reproducing 500 Hz, that's its speed. If it was "slow" then it would not be reproducing 500 Hz. I believe what people are referring to as "a fast driver" is a driver that can accelerate and decelerate closer to the ideal, which is instant with zero lag. Basic physics tells us that "instant" is basically not obtainable. Basic physics also tells us (all else being equal) that a lighter membrane will accelerate and decelerate closer to the ideal. Many people refer to this as "transient response". The ability of a driver to  accelerate and decelerate closer to the ideal is important for the driver to be able to track complicated wave forms, music.

Line sources, panels, OBs, box speakers, long and short ribbons, AMTs line arrays and other designs is a different discussion.

Our speakers are an AMT line source design that are OB and have a sensitivity of 105dB. The OB woofer is separate. Harry Weisfeld, founder of VPI Industries and proud owner of our Apollo12 speakers describes them as" the fastest speaker he has ever heard". Our measurements tell me that their excellent transient and phase response is why they sound "fast".

Mike