Audio nirvana ends with planar/electrostats?

Always heard quite a consensus that the pilgrimage for lifelike hi-end speakers ends with electrostatic or magnestat speakers. Is that still the case today with top traditional design speakers like i.e. Avalon/Wilson ??

Has anybody of you tried to leave their beloved quad/Soundlab/Mlogan for a Avalon speakers type?

Avalons, seems not bad to many people, easy load, but possibly quite expensive(amp saving?)

On the contrary it seems that more power is needed for the electrostats/magneplanars but models are generally cheaper (more musical?)

In few other words, for a full musical experience and lifelike reproduction (jazz music) better to go for a ESL 989 or Soundlab speaker type and expend the rest of the budget for the right amplification, or go for a middle class Avalon ?

Has anybody of you critically audition their beloved electrostat/magneplan speaker towards a top notch Avalon ? Outcomes ?
Thanks for taking my request seriously and I know that we are talking helicopter view here, but I should start someway without making a too long and boring thread.
Audio nirvana starts with Lowther/Korneff 45 DH SET this combo left my Maggies in the dust.
I also disagree. My Acoustic Energy 1 Signatures seem to match most electrostats in detail and soundstaging, and no electrostat I have ever heard has enough DYNAMICS to sound real to me. A drum kick should hit me in my gut, not gently caress my face. Some people live for electrastats, so its a personal thing.........

I went from B&W 803's to Maggie MMG's to 1.6's and then to infinity 4.1t's. Could not be happier. So no.
You wrote: "...or go for a middle class Avalon?"

Avalon = Middle Class?

Did you mean that you thought Avalon speakers are middle class, or did you mean picking a middle of the Avalon line (i.e. Opus)?

Avalon speakers, especially the Eidolons, are not middle class, in any way, shape or form. With the right equipment, (which means only the best electronics, as well as a very powerful amp), these speakers give you the very best sound. (At least the best sound that I have ever heard, and that includes stereo stores or stereo shows).

A friend of mine has them, after he had experimented with Martin Logan, Thiel, etc.. In fact, after hearing his setup, I gave up my Martin Logan speakers (Sequel II's), in order to upgrade to the Revel Studios. My new speakers have several qualities better than my Martin Logans, including better soundstaging, dynamics, LF response. (I believe that the Martin Logans are good, just not as good.)

While I have not heard the Soundlabs, I have heard the Quads. I like them quite a bit, but not more than either the Avalon Eidilon or my Revel Studio, although, better than the Avalon Opus, (which just seemed to lack a certain something).

Therefore, in my opinion, the planer/electrostatics do not necessarily mean best. (Although, I will admit, that my previous favorite was the Apogee Diva speaker, which was of the planer (ribbon) type of speaker!)
In addition, planer/electrostatics do not necessarily need more power than more convential speakers, as the Eidolons like to have 400W/ch to really bloom, and my Revel Studios like 200W/ch. (Although the Divs's would eat power for lunch, since they dipped down below 1 ohm, ouch!)

Those are my two cents worth anyway.
Sound Lab speakers are the end of a journey for many who take the plunge. Having owned several other electrostatics and moving coil speakers, I eventually decided to become a dealer for them (there's my disclaimer). There aren't many other speakers I would own.
I have heard Avalon Eioldon speakers at a friends house and was very impressed with their musicality. He was using wonderful tube mono blocks made by (Nervostatic or something close to that - the guy that made the well regarded speakers). I really enjoyed them. Having said that, I really love my Martin Logan ReQuest speakers with cj tubes running them. It is the end of the road for me as I can't see spending a lot more money when I am extremely satisfied with my system now.

I think that stats and tubes are pretty much it with the exception of slam and dynamics.
Quad's are hard to beat, especially for jazz, but as others have said there are tradeoff's. Dynamic compression is the major one, sound level (not for jazz) is the secord one - they don't play loud, and pinpoint imaging can be hard to come by - reduces apparent resolution at times. They are not plug and play (for best results) and require careful placement and room treatment to get their best. Amplification makes a huge difference as well. After 5 years I got some full range dynamic's based on Dynaudio drivers and haven't looked back (much!-I still haven't sold the Quads!) In my book, for low to medium volume listening you just can't beat properly set up electrostats.
Electrostats were not Nirvana for me. I left my Soundlab M-2's for a pair of Shahinian Diapasons. I like the Shahinians much more. Sorry but I have not heard the Avalons.
Every single speaker will require some type of trade-off.
I owned the Innersound Eros MKII electrostatic and it was a great speaker - the problem was the sweet spot was only about a foot wide. I heard the Martin Logan CLS and it sounded great - although to me it lacked bass and for my experience, driven by Krell electronics, it wasn't able to go very loud before it clipped. Then I purchased a Von Schweikert VR4 Gen III and I thought/think that's a great speaker as well. In the end it's all a personal choice, I will stay with Von Schweikert.
Best of Luck
I though it was horns and SETs?