A little generalization can be a dangerous thing.
For example, among the 4 major brands of electrostats available in the US (Martin-Logan, InnerSound, Quad, and Sound Lab), I can find you models that are efficient, or easy to drive, or have a very wide sweet spot, or are easy to set up, or have excellent bass (with and without a conventional woofer), or play very loud, or work well in a wide variety of rooms.
I can do similar things with the 4 brands of ribbons that come to mind (Magnepan, Newform, Bohlender-Graebener [including B-G users Soundline and Wisdom Audio], and Oskar Heil).
And, I can name box speakers that are unboxy, have excellent clarity, superb soundstaging, very low coloration, or sound lively at low volume levels.
What I can't do is name a single speaker model - ribbon, stat, box, horn, whatever - that does it all.
Going back to electrostats, most of the articles written by detractors use outdated generalizations and/or overlook successful engineering solutions to the theoretical challenges of electrostatic design. John Dunlavy's paper, linked above, is an example of this. Each of the four issues he raises have been succesfully addressed by modern designers.
S2000Turbo, your own personal priorities are probably the best guide as to what speakers are likely candidates. You see, if you follow the oft-made generalizations by fans or detractors of a given technology (myself included!) you will be misled into overlooking the exceptions. And it is those exceptions that are the real hidden gems.
I'd suggest you use your personal priorities as a starting point, and look for specific loudspeaker models that meet those priorities. There are some very innovative designs out there, which defy even the best-intentioned generalizations.
Best of luck on your quest!