Planars/ Electrostats benefits over box speakers?

I've heard only one $100k-$250k speaker, the big Wilsons at Brooks Berdan's shop, and it did sound huge. They are the only Wilsons I've heard that I could live with---too bad I can't afford them!. Brooks knew that life-size image and scale is of particular importance to me and some of his other customers, and, though preferring overall the Wilsons and Vandersteens that he sold, acknowledged to me the inherent advantage panels have in that area, and for us carried Quads and Eminent Technology LFT's. I find the effectively-point source Quads to also have that sound-being-squeezed-through-a-hole sound I find so objectionable, though they're great in other ways. I've heard lots of sub-$100k box speakers, but I've yet to hear one that sounds as life-size as a $5k Magneplanar. Sorry if that pisses you off!

Zd, I did not (mean to) suggest your system is out of phase. Just an alert to others. I agree some what on small sounding speakers but disagree that the speaker is the final abritrator - the room is. We actually don't even hear the spreaker (well, your not supposed to, and thats how it is in my system); You can put the same speakers in rooms with different height ceilings and you will see what I mean; you can put RPG diffusers on the ceilings (and floors if youre careful) and you will hear soundstage height double on many rigs.

"I've heard lots of sub-$100k box speakers, but I've yet to hear one that sounds as life-size as a $5k Magneplanar. Sorry if that pisses you off!"

It doesn't piss me off. I don't have any of these problems.

Cerrot,

I have yet to understand something you say.

"We actually don't even hear the spreaker (well, your not supposed to, and thats how it is in my system)"

What exactly do you think a speaker is? And does?

My experiences go too far back and are not current enough other than a few of the newer Martin Logan designs AND a pair of Quad 2905s that a friend owns. On a further note I was recently talking to my dealer/friend who has owned Soundlabs and been a fan of the virtues of planer/electrostatics while realizing their shortcomings and attends many shows. He recently got back from Newport and was absolutely enthralled with the Roger Sanders designed ESL w/integrated woofer that he claimed was virtually seemless with the panels. If that is the case it would certainly be one to investigate further. I've noted it with a recent ML, can't remember the model # but about 15K a pair, certainly an improvement over past efforts but still less than perfect to my ears, YMMV.

The points made in the early posts by Onhwy61, Mapman and Marty should be noted. There is PLENTY of variation between the Planer/Electrostatic/Ribbon (Apogee) designs that I've listened to over the years that things can't be simply categorized or explained in words other than to listen first hand, there is no other way around this. The discussion of differences between Planer/Electrostatic/Ribbons could fill a book, adding dynamic speakers into the comparison equation, volumes.

I certainly would agree on one point "that isn't talked about enough", panels (Maggies in particular) can provide a lifelike image size that, to me, can draw you in. Now to their drawbacks. It's subjective and only you can determine what works. Brownsfan's example as a longtime Maggie owner that went to a dynamic speaker is telling about the subjectivity among listeners. Great comments above to give better insight.

Cone speakers I've owned-Klh,JBL L65,Mirage M3si, Vandersteen 2 c,Rogers LS 3/5a,Mission 770,Tannoy Arden, Merlin MMxe,Ref 3a Grand veena, Vr4,Meadowlark Heron I,and more.

Planars- Mag.sma, Acoustat3 medallion,Martin logan sequel, CLS 2Z,Quad 63, stacked Quad 57,Acoustat monitor X with direct drive servo amps.

I've always gone back to planar speakers .

I like the smack of cones, but multi drivers usually start to wear on me.

I much prefer a more seamless presentation, which is what planars give me.