Electrostatic vs. Boxed vs. Ribbon?

http://www.dunlavyaudio.com/audio_files/index.html
First Paper.

http://www.avahifi.com/root/audio_basics/ab_pdf/ab1983.pdf
Second Page

http://www.avahifi.com/root/audio_basics/index.htm
If the second (previous) link doesn't work use this one and click on the "1983 issue."

Search old threads (archives) here like "disadvantages of Electrostats," or something like that, I know was one among others.

Sorry, correction, Page 5 of the second link begins discussing transducer types. But the "loudspeaker evaluation" on page 2 may still be worth reading (I didn't read it though so be careful-although ava is credible). He also discusses piezoelectric drivers that get overlooked often and I thought it was interesting 'cause I always forget about those. (I *did* read that transducer section though and saw nothing wrong). But all the articles address what your interested in. Each technology comes down to how well the designer did it as others have rightfully said.

Audiokinesis is right that some designers have worked with some of the "general" disadvantages of e-stats with sucess; but by reading Dunlavy's article it you'll at least be aware of what a designer is faced with and know when a design may have not dealt with these issues-or how it did. Quad and Soundlab are certainly better than Final (I have not heard good things about those--one person described their sound as "nails on a blackboard").

There's oddballs too like open-baffle (dipole by default) electromagnetic systems (Rives' #2) that are free from cabinet resonances and internal standing waves and share the same dispersion pattern just like the e-stats (and they have a loyal, although small, following). In fact, transmission lines generally don't have as nasty a backwave reflection (or cabinet resonance for that matter) as the other "boxed" types which is one more on the list.