The Shure V15 V with a Jico SAS/B stylus VS The Soundsmith Hyperion MR and Lyra Atlas SL

I am impressed that your subwoofers can do zero Hz.

You listen to "modern electronic music"? Just kidding.

If I lived in rural New Hampshire, I would have a Ducati for sure.

Here they give the specs for the DH-3P, showing a frequency response pretty flat between 4500 and down -6db at 37kHz. Drops off pretty fast below 4500Hz. For me, the term "midrange" makes me think 500 to 2000Hz. But the definition is plastic.

Not a problem with a single full range driver.

Dear Mijo, You don’t need to teach me about the electronics, and no, I did not own the Parasound amplifiers any longer by the time I upgraded my 845PXs. In fact, my experience with the Parasound JC1s was entirely driving my M1s, which were completely stock in terms of the backplate components. With all respect to you and your quest for Nirvana, I perceive that the difference between you and several of us is that you want a perfectly flat in room response, regardless of the necessary interposition of the electronics (digital or other) necessary to achieve that. Whereas, I prefer the purest pathway with the least possible processing of the signal, come what may, with the exception that I do treat room reflections in my listening room with various wall panels and tube traps, etc, but that sort of thing is after the fact. You are operating on the signal in the digital domain before the fact. That (digitally correcting for droops and peaks in your listening room) has to be why you are stressing the MA2s, because there is no way they should be stressed purely by driving the Sound Lab speakers in the manner that you espouse. I tried equalization by signal processing once and hated it, but I admit the methods have come a long way since then. So I am curious to hear your system. Perhaps next time we go to northern Vermont I can stop by.

As to your response regarding how you measure in room response, "using a very expensive Earthworks microphone", etc, that is not a complete answer.  Where do you place the microphone? At what SPL do you map the response deviations from flat?

What speaker is being augmented by the piezoelectric tweeter?

Re Mijostyn’s observation on driving the Sound Labs speakers that he and I own: The JC1+ may "work" fine but doesn’t sound nearly as good as my much modified MA240s. I once owned a pair that I purchased only because my Atmasphere amps were going to be out of commission for a few months. I sold the Parasound amps immediately after doing a comparison on the SL speakers.

How did you measure speaker frequency response? Like you inferred, anything above 12kHz is for a dog so far as I am concerned. Many years ago, our youngest son came down from doing his homework one evening to complain about a high frequency whistle he perceived to be coming from my M1s (speakers that preceded the 845PX). I had no idea what he was talking about; nor did my wife hear it. But I did find and fix the problem. (It was coming from the CDP.) Plus, he now lives in Tokyo. If he can hear it from there, we got a problem. Anyway, that incident also did prove there was some response from the speaker at very high audio frequencies well beyond my hearing, with my OTLs driving the M1s.

$40K!!!! Is that what my speakers cost now? I agree with you, almost. I think Dr West had to conjure up a way to make his big panels with relatively wide spacing between stators and diaphragm (thus permitting better reproduction of low bass but also decreasing efficiency) work. So he had to use the bass transformer with its very high turns ratio (by hearsay only it is 1:250) and high bias voltages (before you bought yours, I think, they were having problems with leakage of the stator insulation due to the high bias voltages; my M1s died from that malady and SL gave me a good deal therefore on the 845PXs) in order to move the diaphragm at low frequencies, but that wasn’t a good idea for mids and treble, so he added the separate treble transformer. And that necessitated a passive crossover (for those who would not bi-amplify), and that produced the problematic impedance curve for tube amplifiers. It isn’t inappropriate to drive the stock speaker with a solid state amplifier, IMO. The only thing I never understood is why they chose such a low value for R (depending upon the date of manufacture, anywhere from 5 to 8 ohms based on informally acquired data) in the RC network that comprises the high pass filter. If they used a higher value resistor (e.g., 10 or even 20 ohms) that more nearly at least matched the inherent Z of the panel at mid-frequencies, much of the problem with tube amplification could have been ameliorated.

Dear Mijo, of course I do know how you now run the speaker, I was only referring to the stock circuit.

To add a bit to the ESL plus OTL paradigm, Sound Lab, by using two audio step up transformers, one for bass and one for treble, and by therefore using a passive crossover between them, are somewhat unique in spoiling the natural match of ESLs to OTLs, because of that midrange impedance dip thus incurred. Scuttlebutt was and is that SL use solid state amplifiers (Parasound JC1s, it is said) to voice the speaker and so are ignoring the problem, essentially, for tube aficionados.  Historically, ESLs like Quad, KLH9, Jantszen, Acoustat, original CLS by M-L were high impedance speakers well suited to OTLs.  Then M-L revised the CLS (which came to be known as CLS II) such that impedance was lowered considerably, to suit the rising popularity of SS amplifiers, I guess.  I traded in my beloved CLSs for the CLS II on account of the favorable publicity but without knowing what M-L had done to the impedance curve; the CLS II sounded awful with my Futterman OTLs. Sound Lab "borrowed" the two transformer idea from Acoustat, actually, in the 90s.  So I don't know when Acoustat were driven via only one step-up transformer as you mention.  The earliest Acoustat I recall was the Acoustat X, a giant panel that was direct driven by an on-board amplifier, which I heard once but cannot remember aurally.  That was in the mid to late 70s.

richardbrand, Though no one ever told me this, it was my assumption that the Quad 57 is curved in the vertical plane, because it was designed to sit only a few inches off the floor.  So they devised a stand that leans the speaker back a bit to tilt it upward, and to further enhance radiation to the height of a listener's ears, they curved the panel.  I imagine that all this was to accommodate the smaller listening spaces of typical UK houses and apartments.  They never dreamed of stacked pairs as part of the original design intent.  I would guess that the last thing anyone thought about was how the vertical curve would focus the rear radiation. 

Also, now I think of it, you are probably correct.  The 1963 speaker was called "ESL63".  It falls trippingly from the tongue.  The ESL63 is the only Quad speaker I ever owned. I didn't love it as much as some others. I just don't recall the 1957 speaker being referred to as ESL57, but if you say so....

This thread has evolved as if the Shure V15 was the sine qua non of vintage high output cartridges. It’s surely not that, in my experienced opinion. Far from it. But if you try it, give an NOS cartridge that must be minimal 30 years old at least several hours playing time before you judge

Mijostyn, if you’re talking about the Sound Lab OEM backplate on a Sound Lab speaker, with its power robbing parallel resistance and its very low midrange impedance, then yes perhaps an SS amplifier is better suited to overcome those handicaps. But if you want best sound, you remove those kludges, then Z and efficiency go way up and an OTL kicks ass. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but please stop telling me what I would like.

I am not certain, but if the Quad 57 is curved at all, it is curved in the vertical plane, not in the horizontal plane.  And anyway, Sound Lab ought not to claim to be the first to curve an ESL in the horizontal plane, because Martin-Logan did it first with their flagship CLS model, albeit in a problematic way.  (They used curve stators with the diaphragm suspended inside a curved "sandwich"; thus when the diaphragm moves toward the listener it wants to stretch, when it moves away from the listener, it is looser than in the rest position.)To be fair to SL, I doubt they ever did claim to be the first to curve an ESL.  Sound Lab uses flat facet segments arranged in a curved array, thus avoiding the inherent issue with the M-L CLS but also perhaps fairly described as not a true curve.. Also, "ESL" is a generic acronym for ElectroStatic Loudspeaker.  In my lifetime, I never heard the Quad 57, so numerically named for the year of its introduction, referred to as an ESL57, but I certainly can be wrong on that. We just say "Quad 57".

On the "line source" descriptor, it was my impression that Peter Walker incorporated time delay into electronics mounted inside the speaker so as to create the radiation pattern of a point source, not a line source. Again, I would be happy to be corrected if that is bad info. Whether that was a good idea or not is also open to question.

Stacked Quad 57s were hardly the brainchild of Mark Levinson or whosis. I am 10 years older than you, and I first heard stacked Quads in the home of one of my patients, when I was an intern, in 1970. He drove them with a Marantz 7C preamplfier (when the term "preamplifier" automatically meant built in phono stage) and Marantz 9 amplifiers. Harmony House in Manhattan also had them back then. Mark Levinson was a kid at that point in time. He can take credit for the HQD system, I agree. What you are not hearing me say is that the stacked Quad 57 system that I heard locally a few years ago was comprised of speakers wherein the onboard electronics, courtesy of Peter Walker in his attempt to turn them into a point source, were gutted and so too was the OEM audio transformer. In place of that stuff, Dave Slagle devised a tube amplifier with an output transformer that could directly drive the panel. In other words, only one transformer at the interface. And that transformer can have wider bandwidth and lower distortion than typical transformers used to couple tube amplifiers to ESLs, because the ratio of the two impedances, the output impedance of the tube output stage (which is very high, not like our OTLs that are designed to have a low output Z) vs the input impedance of the panels, are more nearly the same. Plus, Dave wound it himself. Like I also said, that system, owned by a local guy and unique in the world so far as I know unless Dave has built one or two for others, can play very loud and with very low distortion and may in fact incorporate a subwoof in its base. Like I also said, I have many hours listening to my friend’s Acoustat 2+2s. There is no contest at all. As I also said before, the guy who owns the aforementioned system uses stacked Quad 57 triplets at home, but he only saw fit to bring the doublet to CAF. So, you have a system with markedly enhanced durability in its ability to play at high SPLs and bandwidth, with reduced distortion even below that of the base Quad 57. It’s awesome; trust me.

Oh yeah, the reason the Sanders ESL amplifier is so large is because it has to develop the voltage to drive an ESL.  Most SS amplifiers are good at current (i.e., driving low impedance speakers) but not so good at voltage.  ESLs require voltage except at very high frequencies, which is why in general a tube amp is a superior match. OTLs are better yet, of course.

Mijostyn, I always get the impression that you read but do not take the time to understand what I and others write. How can you really know that Acoustat 2+2s outperform a stacked Quad 57 with all the modifications I described? I am quite sure you’ve never heard the Quad system, because it is one of a kind. Whereas, I have many hours listening to both the modified Quads and Acoustat 2+2s. Yes, I am offering a subjective opinion based on some aural data. And then you add in that if by chance the Acoustats were found wanting, it must be because they were not properly driven. Your mind is closed.

Then in your last paragraph you tell me what I already candidly admitted about the bass response of my Sound Labs, even keeping in mind that we once calculated that my speakers have a greater radiating area than yours and so almost assuredly do better in the low bass than yours do without subwoofers. At the same time, I recognize that you went for the smaller panels because you knew in advance you were going to use subwoofers. You got the right version for yourself, and I got the right version for myself. Nothing wrong with that, and I am sure you have more extended bass response than I do. I still sleep at night.

Seems you are hearing the Shure V15 in much the same way that I heard the V15 in my system 40 or so years ago (probablyi version III); flat response but dry and a bit dull.  I didn't keep it for very long. This does not mean that all vintage cartridges are inferior to very expensive modern LOMCs, categorically, at least in my opinion.

Doggie, wait a bit for Mijo to tell you that you must use a stereo pair (or quadruplet) of subwoofers to reach Nirvana. Actually I agree stereo subs have some advantages. But I am not in a position to criticize.

I’m munching on the idea that my Sound Lab 845 PXs “blend right into the room”. Perhaps if my listening room was a gymnasium or an aircraft hanger. Guests who don’t know any better think I’m planning a rock concert when they see the two black monoliths, each measuring 8’ x 3’, in our living room.

I’m on board and have been for years. I just don’t want the extra clutter and complexity. Whenever I get close to pulling the trigger, my inner self says, "Nah. My Sound Labs do excellent bass, though I would not argue that very low bass could be better. I just don’t care enough. My Bev system has better bass, as good as I could want. In my own opinion, a system I have heard locally with stacked Quad 57s that have been modified by removing the electronics and direct driven from EMIA tube amplifiers with only one transformer at the interface outperforms my long time friend’s Acoustat 2+2s by a long shot. But with those mods and upgrades to the Quads, this is no surprise. I think that Quad system may also incorporate subwoofs, but I am not sure. The owner demoed the system at the Capital Audio Fest (coming up soon) with the stacked pair. At home he uses stacked triplets. If he is there this year (along with Dave Slagle his close friend), I will report.

I did not quite say that I am fond of live performances "because of the dynamics".  I said that on the frequent occasions where we attend live performances, what is striking in comparison to any home audio system is the dynamics of live music, as opposed to pinpoint imaging, which was the subject of that discussion.  I once had a saxophonist come to the house and stand between the two SL speakers while playing a tune in our living room (aka, the listening room for the Sound Labs). Well, actually she happened to be visiting and had her sax on hand and was kind enough to play for us.  That was informative.

OMG! I once owned Tympani 1Us and then Tympani IIIs. Those were my only forays outside of the ESL paradigm since 1973. Without the ribbon tweeter, magnepans were dead sounding, utterly lifeless. It’s frightening to think how closely our bouts with audiophilia coincide, and yet how profoundly we differ with respect to digital processing and room equalization.

Guys! All I was trying to do was to establish the definitions of bipole and dipole. But I must say I’m curious about a “dipole cancellation compensation circuit” or whatever Mr Ding calls it. I remember reading about subwoofers using two woofers in one sealed cabinet driven 180 degrees out of phase so there’s no back pressure build up in the closed box. That’s supposed to have its virtues too.

Listening to Big Band Monk on my Beveridge system where bass comes from my home made transmission line woofers. For me TL is the most undistorted bass imaginable but doesn’t go down to 10 Hz.

There is dipolar and there is bipolar.  The difference is important.  In one case, where we are talking about two subwoofers mounted into opposite sides of a cabinet, the rear or opposite side firing woofer will cancel cabinet movement that might have been induced by a single subwoofer.  In the other case, the cabinet will wobble because the two subwoofers are taking turns rocking it back and forth, because they are 180 degrees out of phase.  I always forget the semantic distinction, but I'll stick my neck out.  In a dipolar subwoofer, the two woofers are out of phase with each other, which is undesirable also because it results in phase cancellation. In a bipolar subwoofer, the two woofers are in phase.  In that case, the motion of the two drivers on opposite sides of the cabinet cancel each other out, and there is also no phase cancellation. So bipolar subwoofer good. Dipolar subwoofer not so good.

Like I said, in my opinion Quad 57s are best if you remove the complex electronics that Walker implements in order to make the panel act like a point source. Then a stacked pair (or triplet) can act like a line source. Hearing is believing. 

Pindac, you’ve risen in my esteem. Stacked 57s are among the finest sounding speakers I’ve ever heard. I’ve a local friend who even runs 3 pairs! Dave Slagle (EMIA) built for him tube amplifiers that direct drive the panels via a single transformer that couples the output stage of the amplifiers to the panels. Thus he bypasses the Quad transformer and complex input electronics, which helps too. That sound is divine. One of the few instances where I experience audiophilia enviosa.

What is so interesting is that Mijostyn and I arrived at the same speakers (full range ESLs) driven by the same brand of amplifier (Atmasphere) completely independent of one another and before we ever met on this forum, and yet we differ emphatically on every other aspect: on the absolute necessity of subwoofers (I think the idea is good but I am living without in favor of simplicity; whereas in Mijo's case subwoofers are a must, and it must be a specific design of subwoofer), on the indispensability of digital processing (I wouldn't have that crap in my house), on the necessity to equalize (for me, not even in the analog domain), and in general to allow anything digital into the analog listening chain.  (I don't hate digital, but if I want digital, I would use a digital source.)  I'd love to hear his system and to have him hear mine.

I need subwoofers to replicate the sound of small group jazz taking place 20 feet from my chair? I have to say no to that. None of the instruments get below 50 Hz, where my ESLs operate just fine, and there is no hall to reverberate in a small jazz club. Anyway my Beveridge system does have very articulate bass down to 20-30 Hz, owing to my transmission line woofers ( not subwoofers but woofers nevertheless, that operate below 80 Hz). My only point was that in live venues, imaging is not much better if at all better than what I hear at home.

Now, if I go to the Kennedy Center to one of the concert halls, that’s a different story.

We go out to hear live jazz at least once, twice per month, almost always in small jazz clubs listening to quartets or quintets.  In those situations, I often try closing my eyes in order to appreciate what "imaging" is like in real life.  Even in such venues, it is sometimes difficult to locate the instruments in space with eyes closed, except for drums typically.  One reason for this is the use of auxiliary amplification for individual instruments.  Anyway, I don't worry about it.  What blows me away about live music is its inherent dynamics.

Didn’t Pop Wagner play shortstop for the Cinncinnati Redlegs in 1904-1910?

Slight correction: The impedance data I quoted were for driving the bass transformer in parallel with the full range transformer I described elsewhere, which has a turns ratio of 1:90. Not that it matters very much.  I measured both with and without the full range transformer connected and got about the same numbers.

Perhaps the primary of the OEM bass transformer has a DCR of 4 ohms. So what? There is probably a lot of wire in the primary to deal with the power requirements at low frequencies.  That is what the DCR tells you. By the estimation of others, it has a turns ratio of 1:250 or thereabouts. (Sound Lab is secretive about the actual value, unless Dr West has confided in you.) The turns ratio is what counts. The impedance of my 845PX as seen by an amplifier is around 100 ohms at 20Hz and around 50 ohms at 100 Hz, as previously mentioned. This is measured directly driving the bass transformer with no crossover.

If R is in megohms, then C is in microfarads. Classically, R is in ohms, then C is in Farads.

The DC resistance of an audio transformer means little to nothing with regard to the load (impedance) seen by a driver amplifier. You probably measured R across the primary windings which is always very low, like less than one ohm. What counts for the amplifier is the reflected impedance of the speaker under AC conditions. For example I measured 50 ohms at 100Hz for my SLs. If the turns ratio of the transformer is 1:100, you can treat that info exactly as you would treat the interaction of a cartridge with a SUT. IOW the impedance of an ESL panel per se is very high at such a low frequency because it’s a giant capacitor, as you know. Your MA2s are not having to drive an 0.3 ohm load.

I’m sorry, but without the OEM passive crossover components, the inherent impedance of the speaker in the bass and midrange frequencies is very high, like 20 ohms and up (below 100Hz). I personally measured mine. Why would the MA2s ever have to look at a 1 or 2 ohm load? The reasoning behind using the 1 ohm resistors in series is to protect the toroidal audio transformer; they apparently do not like to look back at an amplifier with a very low output impedance, like your Bricasti or most other SS amplifiers. However, the MA2s have a high-ish output impedance which per se protects the toroid. So, yes, I understand why you use the 1 ohm resistors between the Bricasti and the transformer it drives, but they are not needed for the MA2, which anyway may be driving the bass transformer in parallel with the toroid. (Not sure how you have this stuff connected. I assume you are using a digital crossover that splits the frequencies between the bass and treble and super treble. I also assume the MA2 is operating only between around 100Hz and 5kHz, with the Bricasti taking over above 5kHz. Have you removed the OEM passive crossover components? If you have not, then I do see that the MA2s might have to deal with very low impedances, but I fervently hope not.)

Meantime, I am driving my 845PXs full range (heavily modified by me as you know) with a single Atma-sphere MA240 (heavily modified by me). I doubt the speaker draws more than 40-50W at full volume. Yes, I should add subwoofers.

You don’t need the one ohm resistor with the MA2. Its intrinsic output impedance is protective. Anyway you’ve corroborated my thesis that the passive crossover between bass and treble transformers in the stock configuration is an evil if using a tube amp especially. I’m glad you’re happy although sorry about the blown transformers.

If you're looking for very low capacitance cables, then I suggest considering Anti-Cables.  They have devised an ingenious method for minimizing capacitance by winding the ground wire in a spiral around the signal carrying wires.  Thus the ground current is roughly at right angles to the signal current, and C is very low.  In my Beveridge system, I need a very long run of IC between the preamplifier and the Beveridge direct-drive amplifiers, which are built in to the base of each speaker. There and elsewhere in both systems, I use the higher end Anti-Cables. Reasonable pricing, too.

Mijostyn, Since this is your thread, I hope it’s OK to go off-topic to ask why and wherefore you burnt out audio transformers on your Sound Labs, unless you are referring to the experiment "we" did with Plitron toroidals to replace the OEM treble transformers (which are also toroids). I am still ecstatic, not to say electro-ecstatic, every time I listen to my Sound Labs sans the internal passive crossover and using the full range Australian-made EI transformer in parallel with the OEM Sound Lab bass transformer. Just divine.

Was it some mischief with your equalizer, again, that blew an audio transformer?

I am not sure you can measure input capacitance in such a simple manner, because the input capacitance is only present when current is flowing.  That information you probably need to get from the manufacturer. I am impressed if your meter can measure 0.04nF.  Today I had reason to check the specs for my Fluke 87V in the owners manual, and I think the lower limit of its sensitivity is 1 or maybe 10nF.  I was going to go on here and apologize.  I also have a Sencore LC meter that is crazy sensitive, and with it I can certainly measure pF's and have often done so. If you want to add capacitance, then yes I think you can install a capacitor across pins 2 and 3. I would use polystyrene.  Michael Percy Audio sells them; his catalog is on line. But maybe hold off until you find out the input capacitance of your phono section.

Mijo, don’t forget to add in the input capacitance of your phono stage. In proportion to their gain factor all phono stages present a capacitance, both tube and solid state types, especially those with op amp input stages.

Also, the idea of loading at 100K ohms vs 47K ohms should not be considered in isolation from the load capacitance, which is what I was getting at when I mentioned that 47K ohms with ~200pF and 100K ohms with ~100pF give about the same RC constant. Or in the case of the Grace where Grace recommended 400pF with 47K ohms, 200pF with 100K ohms (about where I am for R and C) is equivalent, at least mathematically in the equation for resonant frequency. I think 99% of manufacturers will recommend 47K ohms for R, because 99% of MM phono stages come equipped with a 47K ohm load resistance, and why send the customer into a tailspin by recommending some other resistive load?

If you have a good multimeter, just set it on capacitance and then place one lead on the hot and one on the ground on the connector, OR if balanced IC, then place one lead on the plus phase output (pin2) and the other lead on the negative phase output (pin3) of the XLR.  The other end of the cable should be disconnected. You need a meter that reads at least down to 50pF.  My Fluke 87V can do it, I think. In balanced, the reading from positive to ground (pin1) will be/should be equal to the reading from negative to ground. The net reading from pos to neg will be one half of either.

I made no recommendation at all, particularly with respect to loading the Shure. I’ve only related my own experience with loading MM (particularly the Grace Ruby) and high output MI cartridges other than the Shure, in much more recent years. A reader can take it or leave it. When I did own a V15 (probably the III version, and surely in the 70s or early 80s), I’m quite sure I loaded it conventionally, and it nevertheless did not engage my long term admiration. I remember it as dry and lifeless. As I recall your saying further up the thread, you were not a fan, either. Mijo has a later version of the V15 with an aftermarket stylus, so his cartridge may exhibit very different character from mine.

It occurred to me that Grace recommended 400pF capacitance for the Ruby. 400pF with 47K ohms gives the same RC constant as 200pF (where I’m usually at, approximately) with 100K ohms. And yet it sounds different.

I think I got the idea from you in the first place.  Then I tried 100K where before I used 47K.  This may have been with the Grace Ruby, but I am not sure.  Anyway, 100K was obviously superior to my ears in my system.

I'm with Raul.  I usually load both MMs and high output MIs at 100K ohms. I keep capacitance to a minimum (about 100pF or certainly no more than 200pF) in both cases.  However, I know that some do prefer a resistive load lower than the standard 47K ohms. To be honest, I haven't looked into the rationale for that.

ADC XLM and its siblings were very serious competitors with Shure in the mid 60s. I far preferred the XLM.

What Russ said. At the risk of diverting the subject, I’d add ADC, Grace, and B&O, certain models of each brand. I owned a V15 Type III and quickly moved on from it.