@fraterperdurabo,
"But if you want the illusion of a large orchestra from 3rd-row center, the Tannoys can't be beaten. Less detail, but more scale. The Tannoys are also efficient and will work with a larger selection of amplifiers."
Agreed. Less obvious detail but great scale.
Out of all of the speakers I've owned the Tannoys sound the most different. The specs don't show it but I'd swear their frequency response must be unique to them.
There seems to be a likeable bass hump built in, not the deep bass that you can feel, there's very little of that, it's more of a mid bass that doesn't seem so obvious coming from such a large cone as it might from a smaller box.
This gives the sound some of the meat that can make much of the opposition sound a little thin at lower volumes.
Something that real sound never does.
@nordicnorm,
"ML speakers require both space and power to sound their best."
I think it's fair to say all electrostatics do.
I've never heard any Martin Logans, only early and late Quads (I even had a pair of 57s) but their shape always seems very elegant and room friendly in comparison.
I can imagine that they would be sonically some distance removed from the Tannoys with a noticeably cleaner detailed sound and a better disappearing act.
It does seem to be important to match electrostatics with suitable amplification. My experience with the Naim 32.5/110 and the ESLs didn't work out too good.