Anyone Switch from Electrostatic/Planar to Dynamic

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.

What I observed is that people making comparisons are basing it on PREFERENCIAL TASTES from what their own ears hear! Like anything else, it's the LISTENER not necessarily the type of drivers cone, planar, electrostats, cylindrical or any other strange unconventional designs. It is obvious that each designs have their strengths and weaknesses.
For those who claim that one type of system is better than the other, THAT'S THEIR OPINION, THAT'S ALL! What they like in a cone, the planar may not. It is simple BIAS for those making reviews stating that so and so CONE speakers are better than PLANARS and ELECTROSTATS and vice versa. If any have researched the more credible sound engineers and designer's RESEARCH, neither CONE or PLANAR/ELECTROSTATS are superior to the other, THEY ALL HAVE THEIR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. If the CONE only GROUP who seem to downplay the planars and it works both WAYS, stop being BIAS, then the designing and EVOLVING of loudspeakers WILL COME TO A HALT. So in response to all the MR KNOW IT ALL REVIEWERS,
THE TRUTH IS "NO" conventional/unconventional driver, cone, planar/electrostats is SUPERIOR to the other. IT'S IN THE DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY INVOLVED by creative and hardworking test/design engineers and inventors. You will always have PROS AND CONS. BEING EXPENSIVE doesn't justify PERFORMANCE EITHER. Sound processors or tweaking ALTER the imaging and enhances them too irregardless of speaker design or adding subwoofers and combining both planar and cone designs which some manufacturers and do it yourself owners do!
From a former test technician, high end installer and plenty of electronics background, experience in both cone and planar/electrostats of over 25 yrs. CASE IS CLOSED,
TRUTH= LISTENER not YOURS!!!

Keep your voice down, willya.

I did - from Magnepan 1.5QS back to Avalon, not just my cup of tea. (larger than life instruments, not a solid bass definition and quite obstrusive for my rrom)

Fernando

In 1998 I finally gave up on repairing the buzz on one of my Apogee Stages & traded for Aerial 10Ts (later Wilson WP6s, Piega P10s & now Kharma 3.2FEs that I am pretty happy with & will keep for the long haul). I still have a longing for the Apogees, which somehow had a liveness & a natural portrayal of voices that I have never heard duplicated. I listened to a few planars (various Martin Logans, Quad 988s, Innersounds) and found them all kind of queasy sounding compared to the Apogee sound I remember. (Perhaps VMPS or Maggie fans can chime in about faithful voice reproduction like Apogees, as I have not heard them.) Plus, the Apogees were driven by very modest equipment (Aragon 8008 amp, Threshold T3 pre, CAL audio CDP, Audioquest Indigo/Topaz cables.) It has taken an EMM DCC2/SACD1000 to approach that "live-you are there" feeling of the Apogees. Maybe it's a rose-colored-glasses memory, but they are like a long lost love.