Electrostatic pros and cons.

I think we are debating technology and not the sound. I think listeners should try out an ESL / Amp combination and see if the like them for the money.


While you do have to carefully match the woofer's level to the panel, the issues I'm talking about have more to do with ragged frequency responses within the panel itself, especially between the mid to treble range. Something a number of people have tried to correct with room correction software with varying levels of success.

I don't think this should matter as much as personal listening experience however. I'm just trying to be clear about spepcmanship.

Best,
E

Apart from midrange transparency at which they excel, there's an overall coherence to an all electrostatic set up (not using dynamic speakers for woofers), but my experience is no doubt dated. I bought my first pair of original Quad ESLs (a/k/a the '57) in 1973 and ran them in various configurations, with subs, ribbon tweets and unadorned, until about 1990, when I bought a pair of Crosby modified Quad '63s- a better overall speaker with less beamy high frequencies, more apparent bass and the ability to play louder. But, to my ears, those '63s- which had the benefit of the Crosby tweaks from the era- never achieved that see through quality of the original '57, so when I decided to restore a set, I chose to have the '57s refurbished, not the '63s.
Over the years, I've listened to others (also dated)- Dayton Wright, some huge Martin Logan (I think it might have been called a Monolith but could be wrong) driven by Jadis amps at a lovely little boutique on the Il St Louis in Paris, their early, original CLS, and going back further, double KLH 9s with Marantz tube electronics, Janzen tweeter arrays, etc. I did not hear the Soundlabs- I should, nor the Beveridge, from back in the day. I gather that the Sanders are a preferred maker these days. 
I hung in with electrostats until 2006, when i switched to a horn array, one that also depends on dynamic woofers-- the Avantgarde. In some ways, a very similar experience in getting the deeper bass to cohere with an unfettered midrange. I keep the restored Quads as part of a second vintage system that is just "yummy"- perhaps a bit romantic, but oh, those old Quads- maybe I'm just lost in a nostalgic sound. The folks with the Soundlabs and Sanders might tell you that you can have it all without the shortcomings. 
Interestingly, on amps, I long ran mid-power ARC amps- high quality in the day, from a Dual 75a, to a D70 mk ii, to a Classic 60 (which was part of the newer ARC sound at the time- less tubelike). The best the old Quads have sounded, though, is with the measly old pair of Quad II amps running real NOS GEC KT 66s. Within the limits of that speaker, it's the best sound I have obtained on them. 
Electrostats can be addictive, even if other speakers can do some things (bass thwack, high dB) better. FWIW, I didn't confine myself to chamber music, string quartets and small jazz combos. You can hear into the music at lower volume levels. I would guess that with the right current model, large enough panels, you can come pretty close to getting it all. And perhaps, with more modern woofer technology, you can enhance them effectively without the seams-- I now run the '57s unadorned, without any tricks, mods or augmentation. 
They are insensitive to side wall placement, want to be well away from the front wall (the wall behind the speaker) and at least with the Quad, were acutely sensitive to tiny adjustments in angle- no doubt due to the very beamy tweeter panel.  Mine are in a relatively small room. 
Viz: https://thevinylpress.com/a-tribute-to-quad/

Thank you , all, for your input. I am definitely curious about them and just might grab a pair to see for myself.  

Being an owner of ESL speakers for several years, and having used and reviewed others and these in many systems, I disagree with several of the generalities associated with ESL speakers. I do not find ESL inherently superior in terms of cleanness, clarity, definition, etc. In fact, in some respects they are poorer than the finer dynamic or hybrid dynamic speakers. 

ESL speakers can reveal a wonderful amount of information, however they do not reveal more information than other types of speakers. It is more so the type of information they reveal which is construed as "more". Dipole and line source speakers produce unique wave forms, and I believe that is mistakenly taken as more information. 

While the scale of ESL is typically superior to most dynamic speakers, the resolution and fine detail of the center/phantom image is not superior. It is splayed, and that is unavoidable due to the nature of the drivers. 

Bass is typically a weakness with large panels. Some manufacturers do better than others in that regard. Declarations of one brand as inherently superior to others are highly subjective, and in my case not supported by actual use. 

I do not agree that they are superior in midrange transparency. I can get equally fine midrange from all sorts of speakers, line source, dynamic, hybrid dynamic. The character of the midrange, as with all frequencies is different with ESL. I am unwilling to give up LF in using an ESL speaker, and then try to compensate by saying the midrange is so great. That is simply not true in my experience. No one should buy an ESL because they think the midrange will be vastly superior. 

I do not agree that they are insensitive to side wall placement; placing material to their side along the wall has an audible impact on the sound, and I recommend people experiment with that. 

ESL can be a fantastic listening experience - or else I wouldn't own one. But, it has inherent weaknesses, and is not wholesale superior to other genres of speakers. Anyone who tells you so is speaking from emotion, not fact. 

I am not interested in debating or arguing my perspective.