cones vs electrostats

I switched from horn to electrostatics. Horns are very dynamic, but the ones I had were poor on imaging. I love the electrostatics and would not go back--but they aren't for everyone. As with most things--there are compromises. For one, they are not as dynamic as most cones. If you want to listen to rock music--you would likely be disappointed. Second, room placement is very important. They need to have a reflecting wall behind them and usually 30 to 50 inches away from the wall behind them. Lastly, electronics that drive them are critical. They are very revealing--which can be good--but it can also be bad. Poor amplification will sound really bad on the Requests, whereas some dynamic speakers might be more forgiving (while I am not very familiar with your particular Snell speakers--they generally require good electronics). So to answer your question directly--I'm very happy with the change, but my prior electronics (amplifiers) forced me to to make a pretty large investment in amplifiers to get the most out of my Martin Logans.

I have not owned electrostatics, but I did own speakers with ribbon mids/tweeters. My disappointment with them, and with most electrostatics I have heard becomes the transition to the low-end, where cones are usually still used. The sound character on mine changed in that department somehow ... it was always bothersome. I am not sure how the ReQuests perform in this regard ...

Good Listening!!

There are some very good FULL RANGE stats on the market and for below 30hz or so, you can still dial in a subwoofer. The drawback: if full range, they are large and expensive. But as far as coherence, transparency, soundstaging, the rendering of solo instruments and voices are concerned I find them very hard to beat.