Anyone Switch from Electrostatic/Planar to Dynamic


I was wondering if anyone has switched from Electrostatic/Planar speakers to traditional dynamic speakers and if so, from what to what and why? Thanx!
ericpsych
Well guys ... I'm lovin' my Legacy's more by the day. I'm constantly amazed by the overall quality of sound for the buck. Besides owning the MLs that I sold in order to get into the Legacys, I have also owned Acustat III's and modified IV's. All I can say is, I'm never going back. I am impressed with the new Maggies though. BUT ... why go there when you need at least 200 expensive watts to drive them properly? The last time I heard the Maggie 3.6's was at the CES in Jim Winey's room. They sounded really great, but he was driving them bi-amped with (I think) over 600 watt per side. Man, you would have to spend at least twice what you pay for the speakers to do that. Not me ... I'll take my little ARC Classic 60 and just let it coast driving my Legacys.
I started with the Carver ALIII plus. Had them for 5 years, moved to ML SL'3 for 3. I then went to Dunlavy
SCIV-A. I was very impressed with the SL'3's--clarity, fairly good soundstage and wife-friendly(Looks). The dunlavy's are, IMHO, at par with the Prodigy's in bass and clarity. I listen to different music and occasionally HT. I am very happy with the switch.
From kef 104 to ML quest good move, I still have the
logan, bought Andra good move but I miss the soundstage
of the logan, plus I think I was able to match the Logan
to the max. Good thing I did not sold them, but I did
rewire the logan with siltech that made big improvement.
Many people who use planar speakers go back to boxes after a few years, searching for more "punchy" bass sound. I did this. But, I also note that after a while the box speaker virtues get old, and the prodigal sons (and daughters) come back to the fold. Me again. A good subwoofer does the trick.
I had CLSes and subs of various types for 16 years, during which I felt little compulsion to change. I was in love with the "breath of life" thing that CLSes do so well (i.e. voices and instruments that occupy the midrange have a kind of dynamic litheness that I had not heard elsewhere). However, these speakers were manifestly unable to handle orchestral crescendi, opera, rock or jazz at full tilt, regardless of amplification. Regardless of this deficiency, I did not replace them because I didn't want to do without what they did do, and couldn't find anything that could do it to my level of satisfaction. Then I encountered the Wilson Watt/Puppy 7s and all of that changed. Here was a speaker that was every bit as capable of achieving what the CLSes + woofers did for voices and midrange instruments, but they could do it for all instruments at any conceivable volume level. Obvously, there is more to this story but that is it in a nutshell.