Planars/ Electrostats benefits over box speakers?

I also like Marty's post. Another advantage is there are no cabinet colorations caused by resonance and reflections.

Small panels have less bass and often employ a dynamic driver that is difficult to integrate in to the sound of the panel. Although I think Sanders does a good job at it, the best I have heard are the large electrostatic speakers. Those have phase advantages; i'm not sure if cone drivers can be as good in that area. To get first hand knowledge of panel speakers listen to more brands than Magenpan and ML.

Having owned Maggies and as well big boxes, well...

Generally the planar speakers give full sized images (and boxes miniaturized versions --- even most big boxes) and, as pointed out earlier, you look up at the stage rather than down. In these regards the planar speakers are much, much more realistic sounding. But...

they must be played loud (at or near live acoustic volumes) to have the palpable presence and body to work well. I have never heard a planar speaker do ambient music (background-level volume) very well. they must be driven and have a great deal of amplifier current to do so.

Finally, the Maggies for me had to go for a non-sonic reason (or, an indirect sonic reason). To sound right, they need to be 4-4.5 feet into a room. Not many places accommodate a pair of 3ft by 6 ft panels out 4 to 5 feet into a room. So, unless you have a dedicated listening room that is spacious, room set-up is difficult. Fitting a planer-based system into a regular living area (with other purposes for that room) is not easy and most spouses won't connect with that at all.

Polarin mentioned OHMs, which I prefer these days over planars as well. OHMs and Walsh style drivers in general are a totally different breed of "box" speaker for many reasons. I replaced my Maggies with OHMs most recently. I hear Magies still on occasion at dealers and gotta say there is nothing I miss about them still. If I did not listen to pop/rock/electronic music as well as all the rest, I might feel differently. Can't speak for other planars, but same true for Electrostats I have heard like QUAD. I wanted the QUAD sound but with all the large scale dynamics as well that I found limited. OHMs pretty much do it all for very reasonable cost that will vary directly with room size only.

Thanks to the members who have responded so far. Many points will be useful in my search for new speakers. I also appreciate the speaker recommendations other than ML's and Maggies which I will check out. Regarding ML, I listened to a pair of ML's EM-ESL electrostats when they first came into the market. They sounded very good, but the highs seemed a bit bright or pinched. Bass was good but not exceptional. Presentation and musicality were first rate

A member recently had a pair for sale on AG, because he is moving to Martin Logan "Theos" which are twice are as expensive as EM- ESL. The Theos are $4995.00 and a bit out of my price range.

I said this before, Martin Logan has a merry-go round of different speakers every 2 years or so, which makes me a bit reluctant abou their products. I remember in 2000-2001 hearing a pair of ML's "Ascent" which were (over) lauded by the audio press; I was not that impressed, or as impressed as much as hearing Aerius I from a decade(?) before

As many members know, planars and stats can be difficult to place and therefore hinky. If you buy retail, you might get the assistance of the dealer, or able to return them if not to the buyer's satisfaction. This becomes even a larger issue if you buy them used....returns are very few and far between on AG or any of the audio marts
*****************************

To Ohnway61, as I just mentioned I have auditioned the ML speakers, including the original CLS which were awesome. I could listen until the shop's business hours, but that will not predict what either planars or stats will sound like at home

Jim, you've received lots of good comments, but one thing that hasn't been addressed which should be considered before embarking on one of these paths is amplification.

Maggies present fairly benign impedance characteristics to the amplifier, even though their impedance magnitude is in most cases nominally 4 ohms. However, they need a lot of power. If you still have and are planning to keep the Rogue Sphinx I recall that you were using not long ago, its 155 watt capability into 4 ohms (per Stereophile measurements) might be marginal (or worse) with a Maggie, depending on listening volume, room size, the dynamic range of the music, etc.

Martin-Logans, on the other hand, do NOT present benign impedance characteristics. As with many electrostatics and electrostatic hybrids, their impedance decreases to very low values in the upper treble region, typically reaching 1 ohm or even less at 20 kHz. With impedance phase angles that are significantly capacitive at many frequencies, which is much more challenging for an amplifier than the Maggie's mostly resistive impedance.

The impedance characteristics of an M-L will result in sonics that are particularly sensitive to the output impedance and other characteristics of the amplifier that is being used. The negligibly small output impedance of most solid state amplifiers (including the Sphinx) will interact with their decreasing impedance at high frequencies in a manner that will give greater emphasis to the upper treble, and perhaps the lower treble as well, in comparison with tube amps. And the tonal balance which will result with tube amps will tend to differ among different tube amps, due to their differing output impedances. And some amps will simply not be able to handle the very low impedance at high frequencies with any kind of good results.

In the absence of an audition, or specific and credible inputs from others, I would not assume that the Sphinx would be happy dealing with a Martin-Logan.

Good luck. Regards,
-- Al