Electrostatic or Dynamic

Given the correct electronics and room setup, I think ESL's produce a more satisfying presentation of the music than a box loaded with dynamic drivers. The box induced coloration's, particularly in the midrange, bug the hell out of me. Every now and then I'll hear a box speaker that sounds pretty good. I suppose I'm fortunate as I have absolutely no desire to go back to building them or owning them in my main two channel system. The bass of an ESL, like the sound lab, takes a while to get use to. To my ears it does a far better job of reproducing orchestra and acoustic bass fundamentals than rock music. Rock music bass is usually produced with dynamic drivers so I think these drivers also tend to reproduce it better. One of the big problems of a box loaded woofer is dealing with box coloration and intermodulation distortion created by the back wave of the dynamic driver. I believe that a dynamic bass driver properly loaded in a transmission line enclosure best handles this phenomena. But an ESL doesn't have any of this to get in the way of the music and to my ears renders a harmonic truth that is simply alive! Regards; -Jerie

You are right about coloration. ESL sound is lifeless, and doesn't do live music a justice. Live music is highly involving and sometimes even "harsh". And i am NOT talking about Rock concerts and amplified music. If you like it that is OK, but taste does represent ones state of mind. In this case is dullness!

Wished I had known Albert, I was just there in January. That airport was just about confusing just to get out of, or at least exit on the correct side of. I was lost for 20 minutes trying to find the right highway! Have you heard the Dynastats?

Interesting how different people experience the same things so differently. The thing I've really liked about the electrostatics I've owned (in addition to their midrange clarity and lifelike soundstage) is their vivid "liveliness," yet Lindeman5 finds ESL speakers to be lifeless. Likewise, the main the thing I never quite liked about the electrostatics I've owned or auditioned was their bass performance, particularly at the very bottom, yet Shubertmaniac doesn't experience ELS to have any bass performance shortcomings. (Jerie's and Albert's comments seem accurate to me.) Different ways to invoke for different folks, I suppose. In any case, this thread seems to be getting a little off track -- I don't think the point of Philefreak's question was to ask people to defend one design or the other, but to find out if there were other people out there who also vascilate between ESL and dynamic designs and, if so, what they do about it. Sounds like a lucky few have found their holy grail, while some of us are still exploring the possibilities.

I have mixed both electrostatic, planar and dynamic design.
I have magnepans .05/mglrs-1, OHM'S walsh 2 and 2x0, acoustat spectra 33, eminent technology lft-8a with the push pull, klipsch ss-3 surrounds, dcm 1515 subs,RCA and OPTIMUS lx-5,77 linaeum tweeters for rear/center, even an srs labs klayman signature flat panel. also Wharfedales, yamaha,klipsch and RCA linaeum for center and surrounds. All of these speakers with dakiom stabilizers and BBE sonic maximizers, carver holography, acoustic research spatial enhancer, srslabs enhancer, dbx range controller, peavey kosmos for subs. I DON'T LEAVE ANYTHING TO CHANCE. a COMBINATION OF PLANAR,ELECTROSTAT AND DYNAMICS is always the best method.
i have HORNS even from my klipsch and yamaha. YOu talk about overkill? carver amps/preamps and even compressors and equalizers. MIXING designs and utilizing all at the same time is always the best approach, costly but not really since some of you will spend $20k to $225k for an electrostat or dynamic...