cones vs electrostats

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.

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!!

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.