Electrostatic vs. Boxed vs. Ribbon?

A little generalization can be a dangerous thing.

For example, among the 4 major brands of electrostats available in the US (Martin-Logan, InnerSound, Quad, and Sound Lab), I can find you models that are efficient, or easy to drive, or have a very wide sweet spot, or are easy to set up, or have excellent bass (with and without a conventional woofer), or play very loud, or work well in a wide variety of rooms.

I can do similar things with the 4 brands of ribbons that come to mind (Magnepan, Newform, Bohlender-Graebener [including B-G users Soundline and Wisdom Audio], and Oskar Heil).

And, I can name box speakers that are unboxy, have excellent clarity, superb soundstaging, very low coloration, or sound lively at low volume levels.

What I can't do is name a single speaker model - ribbon, stat, box, horn, whatever - that does it all.

Going back to electrostats, most of the articles written by detractors use outdated generalizations and/or overlook successful engineering solutions to the theoretical challenges of electrostatic design. John Dunlavy's paper, linked above, is an example of this. Each of the four issues he raises have been succesfully addressed by modern designers.

S2000Turbo, your own personal priorities are probably the best guide as to what speakers are likely candidates. You see, if you follow the oft-made generalizations by fans or detractors of a given technology (myself included!) you will be misled into overlooking the exceptions. And it is those exceptions that are the real hidden gems.

I'd suggest you use your personal priorities as a starting point, and look for specific loudspeaker models that meet those priorities. There are some very innovative designs out there, which defy even the best-intentioned generalizations.

Best of luck on your quest!

Duke

Maggie 3.6 and sub (Rel or Velodyne)
Heaven if enough power!

Good Luck

I think Rives summed it up as well as one can.

Just wanted to add my 2 cents. I have been hooked on electrostatics since the early eighties.Yes they suck if you feed 'em the likes of Led Zeppelin or most any heavy rock band,but if your an audiophile,thats not what you are going to play over your system anyway.Personally,I save the rock for the system in my vehical,plenty of amps and subs to do it justice.The open life like sound of electrostatics with female vocals and jazz is breathtaking,and I have yet to hear a box speaker to equal it.

Sorry, correction, Page 5 of the second link begins discussing transducer types. But the "loudspeaker evaluation" on page 2 may still be worth reading (I didn't read it though so be careful-although ava is credible). He also discusses piezoelectric drivers that get overlooked often and I thought it was interesting 'cause I always forget about those. (I *did* read that transducer section though and saw nothing wrong). But all the articles address what your interested in. Each technology comes down to how well the designer did it as others have rightfully said.

Audiokinesis is right that some designers have worked with some of the "general" disadvantages of e-stats with sucess; but by reading Dunlavy's article it you'll at least be aware of what a designer is faced with and know when a design may have not dealt with these issues-or how it did. Quad and Soundlab are certainly better than Final (I have not heard good things about those--one person described their sound as "nails on a blackboard").

There's oddballs too like open-baffle (dipole by default) electromagnetic systems (Rives' #2) that are free from cabinet resonances and internal standing waves and share the same dispersion pattern just like the e-stats (and they have a loyal, although small, following). In fact, transmission lines generally don't have as nasty a backwave reflection (or cabinet resonance for that matter) as the other "boxed" types which is one more on the list.