The only reason I linked to the article is because it's the only resource I know of that compares how electrostatic and dynamic transducers work in such detail. (If you can find alternate links, please share them with me.) You should have read the whole thing, because there is a very interesting chart on the bottom illustrating the advantages of the technology, and specifically how it is better than dynamic technology by principle, at least in certain ways. I am aware that the author has issues with his reputation and even that some of the information he publishes is blatantly false, but that particular page has worthwhile info. I don't care about the messenger; I care about the message. To my ears, even low-end electrostats sound significantly better than the most expensive non-electrostats, but that's just me.
That article does not do a good job comparing electrostats to dynamic headphones; it makes a lot of bad generalizations and some blatantly false claims to support a flawed premise. I would not say it has "a lot of detail" or "good detail" in the least. I skimmed down to the chart and here's a few:
A) if electrostatic drivers (or any other driver) didn't move, they wouldn't make sound
B) weight is not zero
C) He uses the phrase "perfectly linear" in almost every descriptor; that's not accurate or possible
D) Radiating surface is not 100% uniformly radiating the same signal (this has been discussed and documented elsewhere in the past; same applies to PM - Mr Speakers' folded diaphragm is an example of this being addressed - the actual diaphgragm is anchored at its edges and therefore cannot move in a "perfectly linear" manner :rolleyes
E) "No resonance" is also bunko (they absolutely have enclosures and housings, they're just open-back in *most* cases (there are closed ESL headphones too))
F) Everything else below that is wrong, over-generalized, or inaccurate too
G) The speaker cone is not just glued at the voice-coil - it is also attached via the surround to the basket. If you remove the surround the entire cone will generally sag (i.e. that is a defective operating state)
H) He's basing a lot of his generalizations on speakers which have different driver design parameters and objectives than headphones, for example a typical large speaker cone is fairly heavy (in the grand scheme of things), and designed for a few mm of excursion - a headphone driver is not.
I) He mentions crossovers and tweeters/woofers, but aren't we talking about headphones? And for that matter, if we're talking full-size electrostatic speakers those also can have multiple drivers, and be integrated into larger systems with subwoofers, but I thought we were talking about headphones? Oh right - because he moves the goal posts to suit whatever argument he wants to make...
Typical Ken Rockwell article formula - fabricate and exaggerate a bunch of BS, spew it like a sensational fanboy, and beg for money before, while, and after doing it. The messenger does make a difference - he's consistently been shown to get things wrong, blatantly make stuff up, and say mean and hurtful things about people who don't fit into his worldview. I wouldn't waste the time defending him or anything he's written.
Tyll has done a *fantastic* job putting together a series of articles on headphone design and drivers as well as measurements:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/category/headphone-101
Also look for comments/posts on IF from Skylar Grey, AudioQuest's headphone designer (and the man behind Nighthawk); he usually posts some good stuff too, but afaik does not have his own site (he has posted on Head-Fi in the past as well)
Your favorite company, STAX, also has a good article on ESPs:
https://www.staxusa.com/Technology.html
As does speaker giant MartinLogan:
http://www.martinlogan.com/learn/electrostatic-speakers.php
There's also Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_loudspeaker
None of this actually builds to "electrostatic technology is more advanced" either - like I said previously, it's just
different. As far as declaring STAX the best thing in the history of things, that's fine to hold such an opinion, but it is just that. There are significant differences in how electrostatic (and planar magnetic) headphones radiate vs conventional dynamic cans, and this has an impact on how they sound beyond simple FR measurements. It's probably reasonable to say that most people like this difference based on casual observation, but let's not make that an absolute. IMO electrostats do a lot of things right, but will never capture the "weight" of a dynamic headphone's presentation; both have advantages and disadvantages, and different overall presentations. PMs are a third axis, and you can also talk about BA IEMs, electrets, multi-driver configurations, etc. There's lots of ways to skin this cat, and there is not yet a universal one-size fits-all "best thing in the history of things" answer.
I'm pretty sure this wasn't the problem. The SPL Phonitor 2730b and the Moth Audio S45 should have been more than enough power for these headphones..
I'd be inclined to agree, and also add that you had Grado cans in the mix - Grados are ridiculously easy to drive. However the whole "well your gear just wasn't swanky enough for you to notice how good your gear is" trope is unfortunately an ever-present facet of audiophile discussions. A good friend once described it as "consumers shilling consumers" and I think unfortunately it ends up ringing true more often than not, especially when it comes to headphone amplifiers themselves. IOW, "oh you didn't hear what you wanted after spending a lot, obviously the solution is to KEEP SPENDING!" Certainly in some, minority cases, it's reasonable to assume that could be the problem - like in an extreme example, where you tried plugging an HE-6 or K1000 into an iPod and complain that it isn't very loud - but beyond that it's probably easier to just accept/admit that the "change" did nothing for you or is inconsequential (or did something deleterious) as opposed to trying to throw good money after bad chasing some mythical "improvement."
I'm not advocating against higher-spec or higher-end gear here, I'm saying let your ears do the deciding - if you're not hearing an improvement or the change you wanted, take note of that and plan/respond accordingly, vs just assuming the problem is that you didn't inject enough cold, hard, cash into the equation. Especially in modern times, it is possible to get absurdly good sounding gear for not very much money, and often-times more exotic gear also reflects some aesthetic or other intangible benefit to the owner/potential owner.