Do larger planar speakers produce more accurate sound?

Larger usually sound nicer (not saying that’s the same as ’accurate’). They’re not so soon stressed to their limits to produce a certain SPL, they operate more ’relaxed’.

Larger size is able to create a wonderful soundstage, almost 3D, and with height involved. On my maggies, with eyes closed, subtle sounds like a cymbal or a shaker, can seem to originate top left, or half height right, very funny. It can be imagination, but when playing the same song again, it again is the same experience.

You didn’t want to talk about base but of course that’s a great part of sounding nice, and of ’accuracy’.

However, it’s not just size, there’s also the crossover filter, with magnetostas the magnets, with electrostats the electronics, the build quility, and ... important ... the moving foil. You’ll seldom see a planar the size of a door ... at some point it becomes troublesome to keep the foil tight and moving as a whole without ripples.

’Accurate’ need not translate to ’sounds nice’. Some people love equipment that’s measurably less accurate.(think vinyl or tube amplifiers).

Much has to do with design the larger the diaphragm. The better the bass 

Soundlabs is the best  although big with their excellent autoformers 

their panel has different size segments for high frequencies,mids and bass 

you truly need at least the bid model $15 k +  to get the speed and realism of a true full range stat.  I have owned Everything out there pretty much .

Apogee ribbons with sub bass in the mini grands was the fastest dynamic  panel I ever had , for a true Electrostst  The Big  sound labs are great if you have the room

they are not as power hungry as I thought they are excellent , the. MBL Omni directional speakers are the only ones I prefer more and don’t need as much space., even their 126 monitors with good subs Giant killer setup !!

I've read and heard folks say that they believe the Levinson stacked Quad 57's with the ribbon tweeters to be better sounding than Soundlabs. I cannot make that claim myself, I just wanted to put that out there.

My conversations in the past regarding Soundlabs were relevant to the overall build quality of their speakers. I cannot understand why Quad hasn't seen Soundlabs as a guiding example in how to build an electrostatic speaker correctly.

A friend of mine is currently building the Levinson 57 stacks, so I wait with anticipation to hear them once they're finished.

The Levinson HQD system was something I heard MANY years ago, so I cannot say how it would compare with other systems.  It was more than stacked Quad 57s; it had a 24" Hartley woofer and Kelly ribbon tweeters.  At the time, I thought it sounded okay, but not decidedly better than anything else I heard.  More recently, I've heard stacked Quads assembled by MyEmia that incorporate bespoke tube amps that take advantage of the high impedance of the electrostatic panels by not utilizing the kind of output transformers one would normally need to lower the output impedance of the amp to match conventional drivers; the stacked Quads delivered surprising volume and bass impact for a speaker otherwise known for their deficiencies in these qualities.

The big Soundlabs are indeed very nice sounding speakers, but I would not pick them over the better horn systems I've heard (custom made speakers).  I would also like to hear the new Beveridge hybrid electrostatic/dynamic systems; I heard the originals and like it except for the overblown bass response.  

@larryi 

Don't you find that horn speakers sound like a megaphone?