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

@richardbrand I know a bunch of very smart people with terrible ideas, my brother, a PhD in aquatic acoustics from MIT being one of them. It is hard to imagine how such a smart guy can be so stupid. Anyway, the Sound Labs ESL is a full range speaker 8 feet tall with a cross section that is 45 degrees of a circle. Dipole ESLs beam like crazy and emulate a line source perfectly. It does not matter where the propagation starts. What is very neat is the image solidifies about 10 feet behind the speaker which people, non audiophiles in particular, are always amazed at. The house is an open concept design, I designed it. The rear of the media room is open to the rest of the house in a very fractured way like a big defuser. The nearest solid wall is 75 feet away. There is no modal behavior in the room at all. You still have barrier effect, the bass gets louder at the side walls.  The subwoofer array ends at the side walls forming a line source from zero to 100 Hz. The side walls are 16 feet apart. The line source behavior ends at about 200 Hz and they turn into one big point source. By then they are 48 dB down and well out of the picture. The subwoofers are perfectly time and phase aligned with the ESLs. This is done by measurement and digital delay and correction. 

@richardbrand A line source does not have to be thin like a ribbon. The most impressive characteristic of a liner source aside from higher acoustic power is that they do not send any sound up toward the ceiling or down towards the floor. You can make a line source tweeter only 9 inches tall. The problem is the vertical beaming is so bad you can only hear it if your ears are exactly at the same level. Now take an 8 foot ESL dipole speaker system and put it in a room with an 8 foot ceiling and you get a REAL line source that will maintain line source behavior over the entire audio band and have minimal interaction with the room. They only throw sound at the front and rear walls. My listening area has no rear wall, so I only have to deal with the front wall. When dealt with correctly the image produced is better than anything you have ever heard. Honest,

@richardbrand Not only do I have a REAL line source speaker, I have a real line source subwoofer array. Perhaps what you are talking about is the fact that most "line sources" lose their line source behavior at some low frequency depending on the height of the speaker. My system acts as a line source over more than the entire audio band from ZERO hertz to 20 kHz. There is absolutely nothing pseudo about it. Again, you need to read more about line source behavior. It is why my subwoofers are 4 feet apart and by the way there was nothing all that special about Duntech speakers. I installed a pair in a very rich person's home on Miami Beach in the late 70's when real Duntechs were still being made. They were OK for dynamic speakers. They fit the clients decor nicely. Their image was mediocre. The real company folded in the 90s I believe. 

@lewm Vermont also has great riding, but New Hampshire rules with the Harley crowd because you do not have to wear a helmet here. They think that putting along at 30 MPH means you can't get your head squished by a run away truck or a WOMAN in an SUV on her f-ing cell phone. I emphasized the female gender to make sure everyone knew I was talking about an XX, not an XY masquerading as an XX.  This is particularly true of XXs driving Jeeps. My helmet is fluorescent yellow and it scares the h-ll out of many drivers. They move over even if they are not in my lane, Brilliant. We now have airbag vests. When the vest detects an unusual acceleration in the wrong direction it fires off the airbags and you go bouncing down the road or off other vehicles until the bags deflate. I don't use them too uncomfortable. I would use them for racing, but I do not do that any more in the strictest sense. 

I do own a Ducati, but in this case I was referring to my Triumph Thruxton RS. There are times when the British hit the nail squarely on the head like the Jag XKE and the Thruxton RS. The Ducati is raucous and in your face, but the Thruxton is just a beautiful thing, visually and mechanically. 

@richardbrand What is a pseudo line source? Do you have stadium concerts down under? If you go to one you can hear midrange/bass line sources. The sound is usually awful. I do not bother any more. 

The problem with most "line source" speakers is that the line source behavior is limited to certain frequencies depending on the design of the speaker. Very few people have a line source system capable of maintaining that behavior below 200 Hz. This is the big reason these speakers tend to lack really punching bass. Point source speakers lose acoustic power by the cube of the distance away from the speaker, but line sources only at the square of the distance. As you move away from the speaker bass frequencies fall off much faster leaving an anemic sound. Full range line source systems have advantages. The sound stage you get is right up from within the first 10 rows. Point source systems are back in the 25th row. Bass and percussion are much more life like in terms of power and dynamics. The problem for most people is the size of the system, it owns the room.

You do not need a distributor. Sound Labs will ship anywhere in the world that allows it. God knows what the duties are like down there. The Aussies make some great equipment. My DEQX preamp is Australian. There are many speaker manufacturers. Nobody makes ESLs? 

I have zapped myself on numerous occasions usually from forgetting to ground out the diaphragm before working on the speaker. That is a bigger zap than what you get from the bias supply directly. It is not capable of much current. The stators are referenced to ground, they discharge immediately when the music stops. 

@richardbrand Sorry if you got that impression, but this is pretty basic stuff. The book is really good and would make a good read for any one who wants to discuss speaker design. You bring up useful issues, but they all have boundaries. You can use multiple drivers without comb filtering as long as they are not too far apart. As an example all really great dynamic speakers rely on one tweeter and that is usually the limit on output capability. The reason is that you can not get any good high power tweeter close enough to a neighbor to function as one driver. The motor is too big. This is not the case for midrange drivers and woofers resulting in designs like and extensions of the D'Appolito Array. Even though the midrange drivers are separated by the tweeter they are still close enough to each other to function as one driver acoustically as long as you do not set the crossover too high. My 4 subwoofers have four feet between them. The cross at 100 Hz the wavelength being about 10 feet. Since they are closer than 1/2 the wavelength they function acoustically as one driver and there is no interference between them, also because the line of subwoofers ends at fixed barriers, the side walls, they are functioning as a line source dove to 1 Hz which has further advantages in terms of room interaction. Not to mention it is a gas to hear eight 12" drivers powered by a total of 10,000 watts put out those low synthesizer notes you hear in modern electronic music. It's like twisting the throttle of your Thruxton wide open and shooting off towards the horizon, front wheel in the air. Some people never grow up. 

@dogberry It is the timing of the reflections that is important, early reflections being the worst. Late reflections dictate the sound of the room. Early reflections should be eliminated as much as is possible. The best way to do this is with speakers that do not send sound in the wrong directions. Eliminating early reflections improves image specificity. 

@lewm I am not looking for a flat response. I am looking for a specific response which is far from being flat. I measure everything at the listening position. The microphone is comfortable at 85 dB.  Sine wave sweeps on a CD are used in conjunction with a computer program. The channels are measured independently and adjusted so that their response is as close to identical as possible. 

You are always welcome Lew. Anytime you are on your way up or back. 

@lewm With a very expensive Earthworks microphone. It is perfectly flat from 10 Hz to 30 kHz. They send each mic with it's own curve. If you had already modified your speakers the JC 1s would not have liked it at all. I blew mine up. Both died within 30 seconds of each other. Live and learn. Fortunately, I got them open box, but it was still the most expensive mistake I ever made. I was going to use them on subwoofers having already gotten the MA 2s. One of the MA2s got into trouble. After a driver tube shorted out two resisters and a voltage regulator burn out. While I was waiting for parts from Ralph I pressed the JC 1s back into service after I modified the backplates. Live and learn. Where your system rolls off is entirely dependent on the output impedance of your amps. My MA 2s have an output impedance of 1.75 ohms. 

@pindac I believe that is a super tweeter. Must of us would not be able to tell if it was present. It would also be a mistake to put it into a system based on dipole line source speakers as it's contribution would change with distance. I once experimented with  Magnepan Ribbon tweeters on my Acoustat 2+2s. Eventually I reverted to the plain loudspeaker. ESLs have a characteristic no other speaker can emulate. Having one driver than handles everything from 100 Hz to 20 kHz without any interference between the amp and the speaker is special. The image is spectacular. I do love estate sales. You can waltz into some incredible deals. 

@richardbrand I cannot imagine owning a speaker that could be so easily blown. In my hands it would not last 5 minutes. There is no excuse for a speaker to be so fragile. The materials exist today that can be used to make a totally bullet proof ESL panel. They existed back in 1978! Jim Strickland made a bullet proof panel back then. I can rap the diaphragms against the stators without any damage. The transformers are the elements that are potentially fragile particularly with amps that are clipping. I have blown amps and transformers but never the speaker itself. 

@rauliruegas Their Sharon Excalibur is quite the loudspeaker. I would love to hear them. The price is listed "on request" 

@richardbrand Do you realize that you have just noted that every great speaker designer is absurd, that the laws of acoustics are flawed. Don't listen to me. Get The Loudspeaker Handbook by John Eargle. It is written in terms most lay people can understand. Learn what you are talking about before you spew out ridiculous concepts. The British don't like music? I think you need to listen to V.W.'s The Lark Ascending. 

@lewm Actually, I think they are $45 K now. I can say definitively that bi amping the transformers does not work. It is impossible to keep the amps from interfering with each other. I tried every permutation.

Our OTLs do a fine job of driving these speakers particularly in the midbass and midrange. They are not so hot in the treble. Because of the high output impedance the treble starts rolling off at best at 12 kHz. I know because I have measured it. On the bright side most older guys can't hear up there anyway. Solid state amps are more prone to having difficulty in the very low bass due to the high impedance of the speakers down there, but they go easily up to 20 kHz. The solution to this problem is to use a VERY big solid state amp. The JC 1+ does a fine job of driving these speakers as long as you keep the impedance of the interface up above 2 ohms. The Bricasti M28s also do a fine job. It is entirely possible that I might be selling my MA 2s. I have not made up my mind yet. 

@bdp24 Interesting speaker with a few obvious problems. The tweeter is too wide which will cut down on it's horizontal dispersion at very high frequencies, the space in the middle is also a problem and the tweeter is not long enough, it will beam vertically. The Magnepan tweeter is a much better design. Like you I would like to hear them. 

@richardbrand you need to learn more about speaker design. The foot comes from the wavelength at the crossover point. If two drivers are closer together than 1/2 the wavelength at the crossover frequency they function acoustically as one driver. Woofers can be farther apart than midrange drivers and midrange drivers can be farther apart than tweeters. Tweeters have to be very close together which is the major problem for speakers trying to make line sources with stacked drivers. What you are succumbing to is lay assumption and as we all know assumptions are the mother of all f-ups.   Quad was trying to improve dispersion. Stick with your KEFs

@lewm To be fair to Dr West, he had to conjure up a way to make the speaker work with a variety of amps and rooms. I think for most people his solution is a reasonable compromise. Most people are not like you and me. They think we are crazy ripping apart $40K loudspeakers as if we know better than the designer:-)

@maxson Don't worry about it. It's my thread and it can go anywhere it wants. 

@lewm Come on Lew. You know you are preaching to the choir. I use essentially one 1:100 transformer to drive my Sound Labs just as I did the 2+2s and they sound exactly the same except for dispersion and output capability. The midbass of the Sound Labs might be superior. Forget about the stock back plate, everything except the bias supply has been ripped out. Nothing in the signal path is original. I should also note that the frequency response curve of the modified Sound Labs is not correct and has to be equalized to get the desired curve which is not flat. You are doing something different by keeping the bass transformer hooked up. 

@lewm See, you learn something everyday. I've still blown out more Quads than you:-) We both own extremely similar loudspeakers, I suspect for a reason. Acoustat 2+2s driven by one big transformer and crossed to subwoofers at 100 Hz sound exactly like our speakers except their horizontal dispersion is worse.....much worse. I also believe it is the job of the step up transformer to convert current to voltage. IMHE, and we both use OTL amps, the amps that drive ESLs best are SS amps with HUGE power supplies. For whatever reason, the Bricasti M28's do a better job of it than the MA2s. I like the MA2's midbass better, but I tend to push them hard the result being a steady drain on my tube supply. They are great amps suited to a less stressful existence. The Bricasti amps are the most bullet proof amps I have ever used. If they do not like something they simply turn themselves off. Reboot them and you are good to go. They also are amazing at protecting loudspeakers. If they detect any clipping either their own or any other unit in the chain they turn themselves off immediately and this includes digital clipping. I burned out two transformers clipping the MA2s.  I do believe Acoustat was the first to curve an ESL in the horizontal plain. The X which came out in 1978 had three panels angled about 15 degrees to each other giving a horizontal dispersion of 30 degrees. The 2's and the 2+2's only had 15 degrees of horizontal dispersion, but it was better than 0 degrees (at high frequencies)

@rauliruegas You are correct! The Digital Drive Plus series has a high pass filter.....a 1st order one. Definitely better than nothing...if it is being used. I use a digital 8th order filter on both low and high pass sides. @richardbrand are you using the high pass filter??  I agree that Roger West could have stated that position more accurately. Dr West did advance the art of ESLs. ALL dynamic drivers are point sources unless you stack them in a linear array with the right spacing between drivers and that has never worked well in home HiFi systems. It has been tried unsuccessfully 3 or 4 times by Infinity, Nearfield and others. This results in a big impressive sound lacking in fine detail and image specificity. Most line sources, like Maggies, Apogees and many ESLs are crippled because they are not tall enough to extend the line source behavior below about 250 Hz. A proper residential line source has to extend from floor to ceiling or it loses it's line source behavior at the frequency matching the wavelength of the speaker's height. The power projection stops at the frequencies it is most needed. Now, what you are talking about is a co-axial point source which has absolutely no advantage over non co-axial point source speakers that are spaced closely together until you are a foot from the loudspeaker. In doing the variable diameter point source Quad was trying to improve dispersion characteristics at high frequencies. My assessment of modern Quads is there are dynamic speakers that outperform them in many ways resulting in a better listening experience particularly at levels above 85 dB. 

@richardbrand Having low bass is a lot of fun. Digital electronics do make it much easier to to get to the point where the subwoofers are invisible while still supporting the low bass. I promise you that if you get a second and digitally high pass your main speakers you will be even more amazed by a factor of four. 

@lewm Which reminds me, I find your speakers to look fat and bulbous (Captain Beefheart). The dimensions are wrong, but take just four inches off the girth and they become graceful. Screw the bass, it's WAF that counts. Anyway, go here https://www.stereophile.com/content/mark-levinson-hqd-loudspeaker-system. The article mentions a dealer in Florida. That was us and we did have them sounding great....for a few minutes until we blew something. The system was doomed from the start. It was way too difficult to set up and way to fragile. You are right, I have a very closed mind. 

@pindac The way I read your comment above was  if you used a subwoofer that radiated like the main speakers, both dipoles, it would be easier to integrate the subwoofers correctly. That is the assumption that is not true. It is logical to think that way, but subwoofers and main speakers are apples and oranges. The considerations for the best performance are vastly different. 

@lewm You apparently do not listen to me either Lew. I was one of the very first people in the entire world to mess around with stacked Quads. It was the brainchild of Mark Levinson and John Curl. It was called the HQD system. Levinson marketed an Oak stand that held the stacked Quads with a little window in the center for the Decca Ribbon tweeter. I'm sure you can find a picture. We had the full system set up at Sound Components in Miami. I have talked endlessly about the poor reliability of both the Quads and the Decca. It was powered by six  25 watt class a amps. God knows how much power they put out in B mode. I have WAY more experience with Quads then you will ever have. I have taken them apart, exchanged elements and blown them up a second time. On the other hand you have no experience with Acoustats. Granted, the methods supplied by the manufacturer to drive them were somewhat crippled, but the panels were genius. They were the first ESL panels made that you could not burn out. All they needed to shine was a good transformer, the right amp and subwoofers.

@dover yes, I listened to it most of the day yesterday. The sound was definitely less harsh, better, but after listening to 5 records that I know really well I best describe the overall performance as flat, flat in terms of excitement and visceral involvement, less dynamic than todays best cartridges. It is also way more sensitive to surrounding electro magnetic fields resulting in more background noise than all of my other cartridges. It is also more microphonic than all of my other cartridges. How it compares to other $500 cartridges I can't say. The high output cartridges that I have listened to lately including the Clearaudio Charisma and the Soundsmith voice are superior in every way sonically. The Soundsmith Voice was also playing through the phono stage of the DEQX Pre 8 in a system centered around Magico S7s and the pair sounded wonderful. This is not the fault of the phono stage. My other cartridges, all low output are played through a Channel D Seta L Plus which I am thrilled with. 

@audioquest4life It is the new microridge version and I have absolutely no complaints. It and the Lyra Atlas Lambda SL are, in my system the two best cartridges I have ever used. I am going to try the My Sonic Lab Ultra Eminent EX as it has the lowest impedance of any cartridge I know of. The Seta L will do both voltage and current mode. In current mode the cartridge with the lowest impedance wins and I am betting that it will outperform the Signature Platinum, a good cartridge, but not as exciting as the Hyperion or the Atlas in my system. 

@pindac That is an assumption that is simply not true. You can not compare the reproduction of very low frequencies with higher frequencies. Matching subwoofers so the system is completely unified is not easy. It is not any more difficult with dipole speakers as long as the crossover point does not go much over 100 Hz. The benefit in terms of distortion and headroom/dynamics in ESLs can not be overstated. 

@lewm Acoustat 2+2s run correctly with subwoofers out perform 57s in every way and you have to throw a Javelin at them to cause any damage. I used a single Sowter 1:100 transformer on each one along with my own adjustable bias supply. Their one weakness is their horizontal dispersion is very limited almost as bad a Roger Sanders speakers. 

@richardbrand  That is some piano.

Next time you try subwoofers please use at least two. Not only will your ESLs play louder, but if you cross higher at 100 Hz, distortion levels in the ESLs will drop noticeably. The problem is getting the subwoofer to disappear. At 100 Hz you have to use very steep filters at least 8th order. The only way to do this cleanly is in the digital realm. The benefits far outweigh any detriment. There is loads of low bass in good classical recordings. Large indoor venues breath at low frequencies, then there is the Tympany, Organs and massed strings. In order to get realistic low frequency performance in a residential space 20 Hz has to be boosted up to 10 dB. This will cause serious problems in most speakers, but not subwoofers. Done correctly subwoofers will give you the FEELING of a live performance while improving the performance of the main speakers. Unfortunately, it is much easier to screw things up then get the desired result and the manufacturers do not help.

@bdp24 You definitely do not want to mention comb filtering around me, it could put you in mortal danger. I spent two months trying desperately to stop it as it was confusing the computer in my DEQX preamplifier. The solution required about 50 hours of shop work and you can see it on my virtual system page. It was initially designed by Dr Roger West. I modified the design by making it a foot wider and using 8" wedges instead of 6" wedges. Dr West calls it SALLIE, Sound Attenuation of Low Level Interference Effects. They worked. 

@lewm The Sound Labs makes that impression on everyone who sees them. Nobody is use to seeing monoliths like them. Just because they are HUGE does not mean they make great low bass. They make great mid bass. I stand by my opinion. Just 15 minutes listening and I will change your approach to HiFi forever especially since you are already 75% of the way there.

@lewm  My assessment of the Tympanies matches yours. I also took a foray into ribbon speakers with the Apogee Divas, also a big mistake. It was back into Acoustat 2+2s until the Sound Labs came along. 

You mentioned being fond of live performances because of the dynamics. The only difference between us is I chased those "dynamics" using subwoofers. Once you realize (get hooked on) the benefits of subwoofers it is a very short hop to digital processing. You are already toying with the idea of subwoofers. I know for an absolute fact that if you listened to my system for just 15 minutes you would be 100% onboard. 

@richardbrand You were talking about balanced force woofers which are bipoles in the context of speakers which are dipoles. As you correctly mention 57s are dipoles. There is a huge difference. The dipole nature of panel speakers is not the same issue as dipole subwoofers if you remove the low bass from them. Like every other dipole woofer they stink at it. There rear wave of a panel loudspeaker, at least above 200 Hz is relatively easy to control, below 100 Hz  you are totally helpless. Unless you can get panel loudspeakers 10 feet from the front wall, in order to achieve the best image, the rear wave has to be partially absorbed by at least 50%. People frequently prefer the sound without absorption, it is brighter, more airy and louder. It is also far less accurate and at times painful (sibilance). @bdp24  As far as subwoofers are concerned, low bass is omnidirectional. The rear of the subwoofer driver is just as omnidirectional as the front. Take two enclosed subwoofers and play a 30 Hz test tone. Walk around the room. As you move the bass will get louder and softer due to room modes. As you get close to walls the tone will get louder. This is barrier effect. Now wire one of the subs backwards 180 degrees out of phase. Now as you move around the room the tone goes from almost entirely gone to extremely loud. Where this happens changes with frequency. An open baffle subwoofer is exactly the same as two out of phase subwoofers, actually worse because in open baffle designs the drivers are inadequately braced. Put your hand on one while playing a 20 Hz test tone at 85 dB. It will be shaking and that is distortion. At some frequency, depending on the effective mass of the system, it will shake so badly you will be able to see it. This is the resonance frequency. There is absolutely no way you can overcome this. You can only live with it and the best way to live with it is to avoid dipole subs like the plague. 

I think what Steve Guttenberg is trying to express is that playing full range ESLs will not go all that loud and because they are dipoles, the low bass is compromised. They are also very difficult to drive and the amps used make an extreme difference. Look at the monsters Roger Sanders uses to power his speakers. Once you take 100 Hz and down away from ESLs it is a whole different story. Roger crosses to his transmission line woofers at 250 Hz using a dBx driverack. Without those frequencies it is harder to saturate the transformers and the diaphragm has a lot more room to go loud, very loud given enough power. I have no problem hitting 105 dB, ear splitting levels. At 95 dB they might as well be playing at a whisper in terms of distortion which is an order of magnitude below any planar magnetic or dynamic loudspeaker. I guarantee "threadbare" would never be a term anyone would use to describe my system or Roger Sanders speakers including Mr. Guttenberg. If anything he would think my system had too much bass and my response would be to compare it to live performances and not other systems. The only problem with Roger's speaker is it is extremely selfish, it beams like crazy. People sitting outside the listening position get no direct high frequencies.  The ETs are good speakers, better than most, but IMHO the Magneplanar 3.7i is even better. That ribbon tweeter is fabulous, arguably the best tweeter made. The ET's tweeter is too wide which will cause it to beam.  I once had a pair of Tympany IIIs. It was with great fortune that I met my wife at this time giving any other speaker a reasonable WAF. She loves the Sound Labs as they blend right into the room. People don't even notice them at first. 

Every audiophile should read Roger Sanders White Papers. https://www.sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers

Every one of those subwoofers you mention is challenged by bad enclosures and their bass is colored.  There is no such thing as too many drivers in a subwoofer system. The more surface area you have working for you the lower will be distortion levels. INHO the minimum is two 15" drivers or four 12" drivers. 

@lewm A dipole cancellation compensation circuit? Talking about wishful thinking. How many bad ideas does it take to make a good one?

The subwoofer design you mention is just as bad as the open baffle subwoofer except the drivers are more adequately braced. Like the open baffle subwoofer the only virtue it will have is terrible bass. Using drivers in phase at opposite ends of a symmetrical enclosure cancels Newtonian forces, the enclosure does not shake and the drivers brake each other improving transient response. The drivers have to have high BL products and very stiff cones, preferably aluminum to prevent paradoxical flexing. You also want drivers with a shorter X max and stiffer suspensions for the same reason. 

@bdp24 Roger was a smart guy. 100 Hz is right. The only problem was he only had analog filters to use and 24 dB/oct or 4th order was the steepest he could go without penalty but it is too slow and you will get subwoofer coming through in the midrange. At 100 Hz the slowest filter you can use is 8th order or 48 dB/oct and you can only do that cleanly in the digital realm. I have been using dipole speakers of one sort or another exclusively since 1978. I have been using subwoofers since 1978 and not able to find a satisfactory commercial subwoofer I started building my own somewhere around 1990. You might want to look at the link below. Just so we get this straight. Dipole subwoofers will make bass, real crappy bass. The problem for most people is that bass is difficult to evaluate especially by ear because a lot of it you do not hear, you feel it. After decades of measuring subwoofers I know what low bass should sound and feel like. You would too if you had been studying the problem for 30 some odd years. 

@richardbrand First of all what you are talking about is not a dipole, but a bipole and in that regard you are speaking to the choir. You might take a look here  https://imgur.com/gallery/building-resonance-free-subwoofers-dOTF3cS I happen to think the KEF Blade is a fine sounding loudspeaker, just odd looking.

@lewm The problem with stacking 57s is an 8 foot Sound Labs. You get a full range line source that is indestructible with a much better dispersion pattern. If I were operating on a shoe string I would look for a pair of used Acoustat 2+2s or even better 3+3s. 

@rauliruegas I was wondering when you were going to turn up. I think inferior is a little too strong, but of all the cartridges that were available I'm sure there were better. Before MC my last high output cartridges were B+Os before that were Stantons and Pickerings. I'd have to go way back to trip over a V15. Call it nostalgia or just the desire to fart around. Back then my system was not remotely near what it is today. So, it is fun to hear what we were listening to back then. Now, What cartridge is mounted in your turntable at this moment??

@bdp24 Dipole subs do not work well, I have built and tested them. No matter how heavy you make them they shake and the cancellation effects along with room modes create wild frequency response aberrations.  The problem for line source users is to match the radiation pattern of a line source with a subwoofer system. Using the same math above subwoofer drivers need to be spaced less than 1/2 the wavelength of the highest frequency they are to reproduce and the array has at end at barriers, either side walls or floor and ceiling. I chose side walls for my system using 8 drivers to cover a 16 foot wall. 

@pindac 57s hate making bass. They will do it at the expense of reliability and Doppler distortion. One of the reasons we were blowing 57s all the time with the HQD system was the crossover point to the woofers was too low. The problem was we only had slow analog active crossovers in the day and even John Curl can't work miracles. The HQD system was driven by all Mark Levinson equipment. With digital crossovers you can run much steeper slopes bringing the crossover point up as high as 100 Hz while still keeping the subwoofers out of the midrange. Given the System you have you really should look at the DEQX Pre 8. It is a digital preamp with a fully programmable 4 way digital crossover. It is a DIY speaker maker's dream. https://www.deqx.com/ The are still selling Beta units at 1/2 price.

@richardbrand The first indestructible ESL was the early Acoustat series, not their amp, just the ESL panels. Then there is the Sound Labs which are totally indestructible. I have tried desperately to kill these speakers and the only things I succeeded in killing were two JC 1 amplifiers and two bass transformers. You can turn up the bias supply and "spark" the diaphragms without any damage whatsoever. I have no experience with later Quads as none of them meet my specification being point source speakers. You can stack them but they still will not become a line source as the active part of the elements is too far away. Peter Walker is a plagiarist. He essentially copied Edward Kellogg's 1929 design, an American working for GE. Arthur Janszen patented the first ESL design in 1955 two years before the 57. Arthur also designed the KLH 9 in 1957 arguably a better design than the Quad, but very large and hard on amplifiers. By itself the Quad 57 is a midrange driver for apartment dwellers. To obtain a reasonable output suggestive of a live performance an ESL must be a line source and be crossed over to subwoofers. This leave us with the Dayton Wrights which take second place for the worst speaker design ever. First place goes to the Hill Plasmatronics. 

There is something about the Shure V15 V that I do not like. I have not put my finger on it yet. I have to make recordings of the same records with various cartridges for AB purposes. 

@richardbrand What is so special about the 10th row is that is where we use to sit, I can vouch for that location. The presentation may be better elsewhere, but I can not say.

You obviously do not under stand how lines sources work. The best are continuous such as ribbons and ESLs. Separate dynamic drivers works OK in a concert system, but not so much in a home system. If the drivers are less than 1/2 wavelength of the highest frequency they are to reproduce apart the drivers function acoustically as one driver and if the combination of drivers is longer than the lowest wavelength then they function as a line source, a one driver line source. What you talk about does not happen. Another way to look at it is you are only listening to the portion of the line source that is closest to your ear, the size of that portion increasing as the frequency drops. There is no cancelation or reinforcement. What you do get is more powerful projection by an order of magnitude and a unique radiation pattern that limits early reflections to the front wall only, very easy to control. The virtual point source you are touting is the exact opposite. It is the weakest radiator with the maximal amount of room interaction. Peter Walker blew it on that one. It was Jim Strickland of Acoustat who finally got it right when he came out with the "+" series. For a line source to function as one down to 1 Hz the line has to terminate at barriers, floors and ceilings or be 50 feet long. If you think that square wave test works you are smoking some good stuff. That is a fairy tail or marketing drivel. No two speakers are exactly alike and music is not square waves. In ESLs just the variance between transformers is enough to throw things off forgetting about stator distances and flatness. I was involved in the testing and formatting of the HQD system back in the late 70's. I have blown up more quads than you have listened to. I have also been using ESLs since then with a few short interruptions. All have been line sources since 1981.   You should get a CD or computer program with Sine Sweeps and you can measure your system's frequency response. Very informative. 

    @pindac  That is what the HQD system was, Stacked 57s with a Decca Ribbon Tweeter between the two and 30" Hartley subwoofers. It was amazing...when working. We blew 57s and ribbons almost every day. They were so much cleaner than anything else of the day that it was easy to turn them up above their handling capability, except for the woofers. Those were indestructible. The Quads would blow before they distorted. Sound Labs speakers will saturate transformers before the panels suffer any damage and their dispersion is more controlled than stacked 57s. If you are not using subwoofers you can actually rap the diaphragm against the stators without doing any damage. Later Quads lacked the magic of the 57s, with all their weaknesses the 57's did something no other loudspeaker did, make the midrange sound real.

@lewm  Ditto

@stringreen No

I have installed the capacitors in my XLR to RCA adapters which are in line with my phono cables. The harshness is gone, a big plus. I have to listen more before I can make any definitive comments other than for $480 this is some cartridge. I do have a slight noise issue I have to conquer, probably a grounding issue. 

@richardbrand I specified the distance, 10th Row. I grew up in the Boston area and my father had season tickets for many years. Of course reflections are a great deal of what we hear and to get a well defined image in any situation, real or imitation requires the right listening position and in real situations a bit of luck. Our own systems require a good room and intelligent set up. I have to admit that in most live situations you do not get a decent image but that is over ridden by the visual and dynamic aspects of the performance. When I watch concert videos I am too busy watching the performance to pay attention to the image. To pay attention to the image I have to close my eyes. At large indoor stadium concerts the sound is usually awful. I will only go to outdoor venues like Red Rocks and Boston's Harbor venue. The sound is still mono, but at least it is not being corrupted by extreme echo. 

The image that a recording projects is in itself an art form. It is fun to be able to pick out individual instruments and once in a blue moon a great set up can mimic real life. I saw the Dave Holland Quintet 3 times at the Regatta Bar in Boston. The recording "Not For Nothing" portrays that experience almost perfectly. I can close my eyes and easily take myself back to that performance. I saw Cecile McLorin Salvant  at the Blue Note in NYC and the recording "Dreams and Daggers" mimics that performance perfectly, scary perfectly. Neither recording has a perfect image as one could imagine it, but they replicate almost exactly what you hear at the real performance. I am also sure there are other recordings that do this, but these are two I was at the actual performance.  

The microphones recording symphony orchestras are hung above the orchestra with ambience microphones placed elsewhere in the venue. 

As @lewm stated the thing that really separates live performance from what we hear at home are the dynamics which are a function of bass performance and transient response. Both are absent from most systems. Image, Bass and transient response are the aspects of HiFi performance I have been chasing since the age of 13. I did not get close until I was about 22 and the I did not get to live performance levels accurately until about a year ago at the age of 69. It takes a full range line array from 18 Hz to 20 kHz, power and digital signal processing. There is a specific frequency response curve required to do this in residential spaces. You have to equalize every system following the measured response with a little by ear tweaking. This can only be done without detriment in the digital space. To get the best image the channels have to be equalized separately and have exactly the same response curve so that the volume of the two channels is exactly the same at all frequencies between 100 Hz and 12 kHz. No two speakers are exactly the same. Then you put them in different locations and they become very even drastically different. IMHO every audiophile should have a USB measurement microphone and an audio program for their computer. There is no other way to learn what one is listening too. 

@lewm That is exactly why you need subwoofers. I have no problem replicating the dynamics of a live performance. I can actually overdue it. 

That is a problem with some small clubs, the PA can screw up location cues. The drums can be unamplified, easy to locate. I find if you can sit up close, inside or under the PA speakers, outside of their blast zone you get a much better image, King Size. If there are two shows every evening I will buy tickets for both shows. Between shows I always get moved up to the front. 

The best way to get a live example of imaging is an unamplified string quartet. Even large symphony orchestras will image in a good hall. @richardbrand you need to sit dead center, 10 row, Boston Symphony Hall and you will have a fine image. 

One of the coolest things about our systems is you can get amazing imaging with any genre. Being able to isolate each instrument highlights the musicianship of the individual musicians.  

@axpert  Thank you for your input. I have gotten a set of 100 pf capacitors to install in my XLR to RCA adapters which should calm down the high end a bit and I will give the V15 another spin. 

It seems that some prefer the V MR to the x MR. If I see an x MR body going for a decent price I'll hop on it.

I listen to everything except Pop and Wagner, even Steven Reich. I use electrostatic speakers, hard to find anything more detailed. On the initial go around I certainly would not characterize the V15 V MR as warm. I can say the Atlas Lambda SL is warmer than the Soundsmith Hyperion MR, but these two cartridges sound more alike than different. Both Soundsmith and Lyra use much higher grade diamonds than JICO as you can see here https://imgur.com/gallery/stylus-photomicrographs-51n5VF9 

@atmasphere No, I was quoting that equation for someone else. I have not used a passive high pass crossover for 30 years. I do not know if you got the message, but I gave up on trying to bi amp the two transformers. I could not keep the amps from fighting with each other. It may work with a different pair of amps, but that would be to costly to experiment with. Driven from 100 Hz to 20 kHz one transformer, the right transformer will work fine and sound superior leaving only one digital crossover at 100 Hz. Live and learn. Lew and I have discussed the situation and we agree that a transformer in the 1:100 ratio region would be best. Meeno Vanderveen produces the best sounding transformer I have heard. Another interesting anomaly is the MA2s go significantly louder with less distortion when I put a 1 ohm resistor on each leg of the primary. I discovered this by accident. 

@lewm Just one other deviation. The DC resistance across the primary of your bass transformer is almost 4 ohms, something like 3.7 ohms. I can't remember the exact figure.

@lewm True, but have you tried to buy capacitors in Farads lately?

Correct @rauliruegas All you have to know is the amps input impedance then you can complete the math to determine capacitor value based on input impedance and the crossover frequency.  C = 1/ 6.28 R F   R is input impedance in megaohms and F is frequency in Hz.

@lewm That is correct, the impedance of the bass transformer is quite high, but that is after that fact. I am talking about driving the Vanderveen transformers almost full range except under 100 Hz. All the stock transformers are either blown or in the trash. The Vanderveens measured DC resistance is 0.3 ohms. The MA2s prefer by at least 6 dB driving the Vanderveens with the added resistors. They do not require them, but they do prefer them.  Most transistor amps will detonate without the resistors. The Bricasti amps will just continually shut themselves off. The only cross over I am using now Lew is the one at 100 Hz for the subwoofers. With the subwoofers the Vanderveens have no problem driving the SLs full range. It is a beautiful thing.

@lewm The 1 ohm resistors are for the Bricasti M 28 mono blocks I am trying out. Their output impedance is something like 0.02 ohms. The MA2s will not oscillate but they do not care for load impedances below 2 ohms either. They actually play loader with the 1 ohm resistors in place! Right now I am going back and forth between the amps deciding which ones I am going to keep. It was a circuitous path, but with a very happy if expensive ending. 

@lewm Long story. My new processor has a 4 way crossover. I decided to try bi amping the transformers. Roger suggested a crossover point at 500 Hz. I used the MA2s to drive the bass transformers and a Bricasti M25 to drive the treble transformers with a 150 watt 1 ohm resistor on each primary leg. The only parts of the original back plate left were the bias supply and the output junction box. It sounded fabulous at lower levels. At higher levels the M 25's protection would shut it off and worse the MA2s were clipping prematurely. The clipping burned out first one then the other bass transformer at $450 a pop. When the second one blew, knowing that the stock treble toroids do poorly below 300 Hz, I mounted up those Vanderveen 1:75 Toriods I bought a long time ago and ran them full range or rather down to 100 Hz where I crossed to my subwoofers and they sounded glorious! The only remaining problem was not enough gain. The stock toroid uses a ratio of 1:92. Nobody currently makes a 1:100 ESL step up transformer. I ordered four 1:50 Vanderveen toroids and strapped two for each channel. The primaries are wired in parallel with a series 1 ohm resistor on each leg and the secondaries in series with the junction as the center tap. Meeno had the factory (Trafco) make them for me without the usual center taps. The High end rolls off a little earlier, 14 kHz instead of 15 kHz, but I can not hear the difference. And the sound is pristine. Would it sound any better than what you are doing? I think so, but can't be sure and 4 of these transformers is $850. 

@atmasphere My cable has been cut to 24 inches So according to your comment 40 pf would be about right. 

@rauliruegas If it only involves a few parts and a soldering iron I will try anything. I also have 50 kohm resistors, 100 and 200 pF caps on order. I have just gone through $2000 is ESL step up transformers looking for the right set up and burning a few out. What's a few resistors. 

@bpoletti Wow! The Vega was possibly the worst contraption ever to have 4 wheels. The V15 was far from the worst contraption ever to have a stylus. I don't know about you, but I am far more interested in performance than comfort. Bentley made a name for itself racing by the way. Google Bentley Boys! What a sight that must have been. 

@bpoletti @dover I think that is an unfair comparison It is more like a Corvette VS a Mclaren vs Ferrari

@lewm All I can say is that it thinks it can. It is a BK Precision and I have no idea where it stands in the world of meters. Rob Robertson had me shorten the cable to decrease series resistance. For MM cartridges I am using the Dynavector stage in the DEQX. I'll have to look inside to check out the fascilities

@lewm You know, I never noticed that my meter does indeed measure capacitance. So, thanx for pulling my chain. On the cable I get 0.04 nF (40 pF) For some reason I can not measure on pins 2 and 3 of the phono stages input. The meter just says RUN. I guess I should get s 200 pF cap and put it across pin 2 and 3 of the input? What kind of cap would you use?

@dover I have no way of knowing what the capacitance of my cable is. Is there a way to measure it?

@macg19 

@rauliruegas Right now the Soundsmith is on the tonearm and there is no harshness at all. Thanx for the link.

@atmasphere OK, I ordered two 22k Vishay resistors. 

@macg19 It is called a public health service scholarship. The Feds paid for everything.

@atmasphere OK I'm game. The phono section has the typical 47K input impedance. There are no facilities for loading or capacitance. So, if I put 47k resistors across the input jacks that would do it yes? I'll try 1.5 grams although it was not having any trouble at 1.2.   

@russ69 Actually it was 1982 when the V was released. The V MR may have been 84. Walter Stanton invented the removable stylus. The 681 EE was a little later 1968, but the 681 dates back to the late 40s! I liked the EE very much. I had one somewhere in there. I still have the brush in my parts collection. I always took them off. I also had a Win Labs Strain Gauge.....for two months. It came out in 1976-77. I got rid of it quickly. It's tracking ability was terrible. I also hate to tell you this, but the Infinity Black Widow was way too lite for it. It was way too lite for just about everything except cartridges like the V15 and the Stanton. Following the release of the Syrinx PU3 the focus became rigidity and not super low mass. I was running an LP12 with an SME arm on it at the time.

@lewm The TD124 that I bought used had a wooden ADC Pritchard arm on it. It had the sloppiest head shell and could not hold azimuth. I hated it and got my first SME in short order. I think it permanently damaged ADC's reputation for me, but some of their cartridges where highly rated.

@macg19 Actually, your parents paid for it and medical school after that. (Federal Taxes)

@russ69 I'm talking back in 1964 when the V15 was released. It had very little if any serious competition at the time. My father was still using an ESL cartridge at 5 grams. 

@lewm I'm not sure which V15 I owned. I had just sold my Thorens TD124 and was using a Sony belt drive with an SME on it. Free from rumble at last. Cartridges usually did not last more than a year for me. After the Shure there was a Stanton and then a B+O which I kept through collage.