Squirrel,
Yeah I agree the Electrostats are deficient to the Dynamics except the transparency part, you can see right through most electrostats...not to be confused with magneplanars. :)
CDwallace
Only reason people tolerate electrostatic speakers today is because they are dipoles, thus they are a functional 4 channel systems or primitive surround sound system (2 direct ch., 2 delay ch. (see audioK's post) Fact is without Quad's and Magneplanars, most panel type speakers aren't that good for the $$$'s charged. As a once proud Martin Logan (QuestZ, CLSz) owner I can only shake my head at what is available now for the $$$.
My solution to hard to position (Magneplanar), fragile (Apogee), over-priced (ML, Sound Lab) temperamental (Quad)electrostats was surround sound. I have the big dipole soundstage, endless detail (due to the three channel array) and full range sound (sub) without compromise. And a wonderful engaging warm sound to the music that is easy on the ears from a fatigue standpoint. Its proven that the addition of rear channels engages (ie emotional impact) the listener to a much higher degree than any other device will that doesn't amount to a gross quality difference in playback performance.
Yes, better than two channel!! hard to imagine but its true. My solution was born of frustration 12 years ago and I have never looked back to dipoles. I like having control of the delay so my Viola's don't grow to 6' tall :). A luxury of modern technology i've grown very accustomed too.
PS: the solution is not universal so don't think some primitive Proceed processor is going to do the job! Like any problem it helps to have the right tools to fix it and there is a right way and wrong way to do surround. Don't stray from the textbook.
