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


On a sentimental lark I purchased two Shure V15 V bodies and one SAS/B stylus. I was always a realistic about the Shure's potential. Was comparing it to $10k+ cartridges fair? Absolutely. The Shure was considered to be one of the best cartridges of the day. Why not compare it to a few of the best we have today?

The Shure has always been considered to be unfailingly neutral. Famous recording engineers have said it sounded most like their master tapes. I do not have an original stylus for the Shure and I can not say that the Jico performs as well. 

My initial evaluation was quite positive. It worked wonderfully well in the Shroder CB. With a light mounting plate and small counterbalance weight a resonance point of 8 hz was easily achieved. There was nothing blatantly wrong with the sound. There was no mistracking at 1.2 grams. You can see pictures of all these styluses here https://imgur.com/gallery/stylus-photomicrographs-51n5VF9 

After listening to a bunch of favorite evaluation records my impression was that the Shure sounded on the thin side, lacking in the utmost dynamic impact with just a touch of harshness. I listened to the Shure only for four weeks as my MC phono stage had taken a trip back to the factory. I was using the MM phono stage in the DEQX Pre 8, designed by Dynavector. I have used it with a step up transformer and know it performs well. I got my MC stage back last week and cycled through my other cartridges then back to the Shure. The Soundsmith and Lyra are much more alike than different. I could easily not be able to tell which one was playing. The Lyra is the slightest touch darker. The Shure is a great value....for $480 in today's money, but it can not hold a candle to the other cartridges. They are more dynamic, smoother and quieter. They are more like my high resolution digital files. Whether or not they are $10,000 better is a personal issue. Did the DEQX's phono stage contribute to this lopsided result? Only to a small degree if any. I do have two Shure bodies and they both sound exactly the same. The Shure may have done better with a stock stylus. I do not think the age of the bodies contributes to this result at all. 

128x128mijostyn

@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. 

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.

@mijostyn 

Have you managed to try out the recommended capacitive loading ( 250-300 pf ) on the Shure yet. I am interested to know the results.

Re Tympanis - I had a pair traded years ago, spent more time repairing them than listening. Fortunately found someone that thought they made very good screens for their parlour.

 

@lewm stated "Hearing is believing ".

I stopped taking description of Audio Equipment's end sound as a guidance many many years past. I have been much more interested in being able to encounter sound and form my assessments, as a result of the impression that had been made. 

Isolated / Insular Listening experiences leaves an individual quite limited in their experiences of sound being produced from recorded music replays.

My friend who tinkers with the 57's will be informed of the design for Quad 57 mentioned by @lewm, maybe I can hear one, especially as I donored 2 x 57's to support their own array method used.     

Now that I have a powered subwoofer between my Quad 2905 speakers, I realise I could have got away with 2805s (or their replacements with fancy wood trim, the 2812). The trick has been to adjust the level of the subwoofer such that I cannot tell when it is switched on, but can tell when it is switched off - I know that makes little sense, but perhaps you understand me. It is like adding, say, cinnamon to Italian savoury dishes, not so much you can taste it, but it still adds something to the flavour.