I sell SoundLABs and used to own Dynastats, have some experience with InnerSounds, and have only heard Eminience Technology speakers under show conditions. To me the ET's didn't have the articulation of the electrostats, but then most speakers don't.
The main difference between the InnerSounds and Sound Labs is the wider pattern (and hence wider sweet spot) of the Sound Labs vs. the narrow pattern (with superb imaging for one) and tighter bass of the InnerSounds.
I gather that you're looking at home theater options, in which case the wide radiation pattern (and hence wide sweet spot) of the Dynastats might make more sense.
The Marquee is a decent center channel, but I don't think it would be competition for the Dynastat as left and right speakers for music. A pair of Marquees retails for almost as much as a pair of Dynastats. Personally, I'd pick two Dynastats over three Marquees. The Marquee is not a dipole, and the electrostatic element it uses isn't as good as the large dipole panels. The Marquee's three square elements are angled to give reasonably broad coverage in the horizontal plane, but they are beamy in the vertical plane. The crossover is fairly high - about 1 kHz. The Dynastat crosses over at 250 Hz, and its electrostatic panel is tall enough to give good vertical coverage, while horizontally it gives uniform coverage over a 60 degree arc.
I hope this helps - let me know if you have any other questions.
Best of luck in your quest,
Another helpful post from a great guy and a conscientious dealer, all wrapped up in one. Thanks for setting the example Duke : ) Sean
I agree with Audiokinesis. Three Marquee's is probably a bad idea. I tried to tweek a theater that had 3 5000c Meridian center channel speakers in the same configuration. It never sounded good no matter what I did. You have the right idea matching all your speakers, but sideways center channel speakers, in general, are a sonic compromise. Two Dynastats would be a better choice.
ET's are very directional, although they do a great job at their price point if you are IN the listening position. Move above or below the small ribbon and the highs roll off considerably. For a dedicated listening room on a budget they work well.
If you want some dynamics with wide dispersion electrostatic top end in a smaller package, you might look at some used Gallo Solo or Reference II's or III's.
I sold SoundLab, ET, Gallo and Meridian.
As a Sound Lab owner and dealer, I agree using multiple Marquees would not be satifactory. I suggest finding the space for at least a pair of Dynastats. The other speakers mentioned beam significantly due to their flat panels, which may be a major issue for when more than one listener is present. Bass is another consideration: the ETs might be very thin sounding for use in a home theater system without subwoofers.
>the ETs might be very thin sounding for use in a home theater system without subwoofers.
Community Audio once told me the ET's are a "midrange speaker" on the phone, and I concluded they didn't know what model the VIIIa's are. While their dynamic woofers don't go flat to 20hz - and they go pretty low - I would never describe the sound as thin. If anything, the low end is slightly rich.
ET's would not be my choice for home theater for other reasons.
Ya know what the "funny" thing about this is Brian? Roger Sanders, the original owner / designer of Innersound, is the guy that "invented" curved panel E-stat's. The fact that none of the Innersound's make use of this design approach has always baffled me. Sean
I wish to thank everyone for their comments and advice.
I too wondered why Innersound speakers don't utilize curve panels when Roger Sanders - a class act - was, as Sean said, the guy who invented them?
Now that Roger Sanders is no longer with Innersound, does anyone know what's next for him?
I thought the Innersound propaganda addressed the sonic aspects of not curving their panels. Less membrane breakup was the rationale?
It also could be a patent or non compete issue for all I know. ; >
A curved panel is MUCH more difficult and costly to build if trying to achieve both good and consistent results. When it comes to mass production and profit margins, time and cost are things that a manufacturer tries to keep to a minimum. If they can't do this, the end result is increased production costs with a commensurate increase in retail pricing. The more that you raise your price, the less accessible that it is to the masses. The less accessible that it is, the less potential that you have for sales.
As a side note, i don't think that anyone finds the Sound Lab's to suffer from break-up, even though they make use of a curved radiating surface. Then again, these have a phenomenally rigid and very time consuming to build support structure. The fact that Roger West segmented the panels also reduces the potential for membrane break-up, which demonstrates just a small portion of the amount of R&D that he's investing in making these products as good as they are.
Roger Sander's could also build and market a product similar to the Sound Lab's, but whether or not he considers it to be a highly marketable product and / or has the resources available to do so is another matter. From what i understand, Mr Sanders was put in a less than desirable position due to the way that Innersound was stolen out from beneath him. Sean
From memory, the Innersound marketing materials also cite narrow horizontal dispersion as a desirable quality.
Now, how their arguments relate to issues of property protection, or economies of scale, or desired price points, or capital/resources on hand, I have no idea.
It is also true that sometimes companies say what they really do believe.
go with dynastats and an otl. i think it was a fourier sans parriel. while they tend to be slightly cool they present a haunting sound stage. harry belafonte live at carnegie hall. i could hear someone walk across the stage and pick something up. you can warm it up with a lush cartridge like koetsu.