Electrostatic or Dynamic

Interesting how different people experience the same things so differently. The thing I've really liked about the electrostatics I've owned (in addition to their midrange clarity and lifelike soundstage) is their vivid "liveliness," yet Lindeman5 finds ESL speakers to be lifeless. Likewise, the main the thing I never quite liked about the electrostatics I've owned or auditioned was their bass performance, particularly at the very bottom, yet Shubertmaniac doesn't experience ELS to have any bass performance shortcomings. (Jerie's and Albert's comments seem accurate to me.) Different ways to invoke for different folks, I suppose. In any case, this thread seems to be getting a little off track -- I don't think the point of Philefreak's question was to ask people to defend one design or the other, but to find out if there were other people out there who also vascilate between ESL and dynamic designs and, if so, what they do about it. Sounds like a lucky few have found their holy grail, while some of us are still exploring the possibilities.

I have mixed both electrostatic, planar and dynamic design.
I have magnepans .05/mglrs-1, OHM'S walsh 2 and 2x0, acoustat spectra 33, eminent technology lft-8a with the push pull, klipsch ss-3 surrounds, dcm 1515 subs,RCA and OPTIMUS lx-5,77 linaeum tweeters for rear/center, even an srs labs klayman signature flat panel. also Wharfedales, yamaha,klipsch and RCA linaeum for center and surrounds. All of these speakers with dakiom stabilizers and BBE sonic maximizers, carver holography, acoustic research spatial enhancer, srslabs enhancer, dbx range controller, peavey kosmos for subs. I DON'T LEAVE ANYTHING TO CHANCE. a COMBINATION OF PLANAR,ELECTROSTAT AND DYNAMICS is always the best method.
i have HORNS even from my klipsch and yamaha. YOu talk about overkill? carver amps/preamps and even compressors and equalizers. MIXING designs and utilizing all at the same time is always the best approach, costly but not really since some of you will spend $20k to $225k for an electrostat or dynamic...

I discovered a really good "compromise" in Legacy Whisper speakers. Extremely open-sounding due to open-air design, yet plenty of dynamics, especially with voices and horns (4 mid-range drivers). 4 woofers do a good job with bass to about 22 hz. If I crave more "slam" I've also got a pair of Legacy Focus 20/20s, but I find myself listening to the Whispers 99% of the time.

Greetings,
I concur that once one has owned a pair of planars, it is not easy to get it out of their system (pardon pun).

I had E.T. LFT-8A's and thoroughly enjoyed them; however, now I'm enjoying the (imho) better imaging afforded by my Chapman Audio T-7's. Eventually, I will be moving up to the more formidable T-77.

I did own also maggie 1.6's, and it was great fun to swap out the planars and box speakers at will. It's just a different experience listening to each of these technologies. However, I never thought I would entirely lose my planars and use only a conventional speaker! Yet, that is preceisely what has happened since I found the Chapmans.

The day may come when I snag another pair of E.T.'s, (by the way, anyone who has found a superior planar to the ET's at the similar price point - I'd love to hear your thoughts!) but for the moment, I'm quite content to test the limits of my system and have not regretted losing the planars.

Had stacked Quad 57's, wanted a change, popped in Meadowlark Heron i,nice sound, set up stacked Quads for a potential buyer.
I liked the sound of stats again,but they were now sold, the buyer liked them too. Took one pair of Martin Logan CLS11z from my double cls home theatre system and it's Depth sub and haven't wanted to go back to cones since. The Meadowlarks are now my home theatre rear channel speakers.I have also gone back and forth but stats always seem to stay longer. used to own, Acoustat 3 medallian, Quad 63, Martin Logan sl3, stacked Quad 57, Martin Logan CLS11z.