Electrostatic versus conventional speakers

An audiophile in our area bought a pair of Quad ESL-63's a few years ago from a police auction for $200. It seems the police confiscated them in a drug bust and an officer took them home and hooked them up to his receiver. The resulting horrible sound convinced him that they were broken.
ESL's are pure capacitive loads and require a very stable amplifier circuit. Most, but not all, audiophile amplifiers are designed to accommodate such difficult loads, but better to check with the manufacturer first.

I’ve got a pair of Acoustat Spectra 33 electrostatic speakers. I got them new in 1988 and still use they every now and then. They have a pin point soundstage and are very intimate. The listener’s sweet spot is tight, much smaller the box speakers. They will disappear into this huge wall of sound.

Now here’s why I don’t use them full time. It’s dynamics. The bass is where they leave me wanting more. I’ve tried subwoofers but cone speakers have trouble mating with such a fast speakers. Another down side is power, they like high powered, high current class A amps. If all I listened to was acoustic recordings they may never had been replaced but this old guy likes to rock.

I don’t think they are better than box type designs, they are just different. Mine have never given me any problems and I used them for 11 years.

If you ever get to Las Vegas Nevada look me up.

Hello ,

For a reasonable answer please list your room size, electronics and current speakers.

Many things have changed in audio since 1988--not the least of which is the dynamic potential that one gets from 'todays' electrostatics.
Twenty two years ago--electrostatics were VERY inefficient, lacked bass and offered limited dynamics when compared to traditional speakers.
The latest version of the Sound Labs are considered to be efficient, @ 88/89/90 db efficient. Their bass goes into the 24 hz region, they present a benign load, very stable--and they are reliable. (Check out their unpretentious web site and get some surprising numbers).
The A-1's that I owned for 3 or so years were WONDERFUL--incredibly transparent--lacking in the cabinet colorations, they allow you to become 'lost' in the music in a way that many dynamics do not. Of course, at first, they sound so different, it's a bit disconcerting to some listeners--but after just a few moments, most folks hone in on the uncolored, smoothe, distortion free (almost) sound. VERY realistic, very low coloration, and nowadays great bass and for me, completely acceptable dynamics.
Pink Floyd at 110db, no...but then...

Larry

As Lrsky pointed out, there’s been some changes over the last years with flat speakers. No doubt they’ve improved.

From my perspective, they are indeed different. Not better nor worse than any other sort. They seem to have a non directionality about them. Though often IF matched well with amp (s) they image exceptionally well. Better than many box speakers I’ve heard.

They also consume some room geography. They need space to be set up well. Many need substantial power output. Bass is an issue moving from cone types into panels for many.

If you’ve ever heard dipole speakers or IOW omni directional speakers, you have gotten a tip on the sound of electrostats. Very unfatiguing and relaxing sounding transducers whose sound surrounds your ears rather than beats on them.

The only ones I’ve liked were actually hybrids. Powered sub units down below, and panels up top. The Martin Logan Odysseys sounded OK to me… and The top Magnapan sounded ok to me years earlier too. But the sweet spot is tight, the bass won’t ever thunder or impact the way it should, they need space for proper setup.

But they’ll never hurt your ears, image like no body’s business and esthetically will be a real conversation piece…. OOOh… and the bigger … the better in terms of lower end reproduction.