electrostats vs ribbon drivers

how many who have auditioned both electrostatic-based and ribbon based designs prefer one or the other ?

by the way, regarding my comment on the treble response of ribbon drivers, especially ribbon tweeters, what i consider bright or peaky, others may not. so it becomes a matter of perception.

i suppose i may be more sensitive to frequencies exceeding 3000 hz than many on these forums, which may be at odds with others.

hi rodman:

the statements you have quoted apply to many topics on this forum. in the future i will not repeat them. thanks for the heads-up.

Mrtennis- Many designs that incorporate ribbons, fail to properly blend the speed/dynamics of the tweeter, with the other system drivers(useually cones). Generally speaking; that makes the ribbon stand out as a separate/more obvious entity, even though the relative output levels may be matched. BTW: have you auditioned the new Maggies(1.7 & 3.7)? Ribbons/Quasi-Ribbons, WELL DONE! Then again- as you mentioned; some are more sensitive to the upper registers than others. It would be interesting to get your views on these new Maggies, especially the full ribbon 3.7, to see if your opinion remains the same. Then too: the more resolving the speaker and it's cabling; the more one will hear problems(brightness/glare/graininess) upstream.

Mr Tennis I can only comment on my soundlab m2's driven by audiovalve challanger 180 monoblocks and feel the result in sound is second to none;I have never heard a ribbon driver but I know the responses you will receive will defend both types to the best of their ability;I would like to hear that driver that Ralph from atmasphere mentions time and again;it must be a very class driver to have caught his ear.

Making broad generalities in audio usually leads to eating large amounts of crow. There are good and bad versions of just about every loudspeaker design. (is that a generality?)