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

certainly in your system is happening and not a possibility with.

@rauliruegas Its clear you misunderstood. When we were testing for 'ringing' it was on the bench using test equipment. I had thought that clear from my post but apparently not. Look for the bit about using a square wave, something that isn't available in most systems. We observe the 'ringing' (distortion) using an oscilloscope.

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?

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.

@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. 

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.

@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. 

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.

@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.

Dear @lewm : These subs  can help you:

 SB16-Ultra Subwoofer | SVS (svsound.com)

and I think that you can build the high pass at the input of your amps with one capacitor but I don't know your amps input circuit.

R.

how about the Sonus Blue

A Subjective Assessment is found in the Link, of the 'NOS' Sonus Blue, being used on a couple of different drive TT's using the same TA. 

https://www.audioasylum.com/reviews/Phono-Cartridge/Sonic-Research/Sonus-Blue/vinyl/108/1086507.html

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.

Dear @stringreen : I own almost all Pritchard designs and for me the bset sounding are the ADC 26/27 and Sonus Dimension 5. Both very competitive down there with the top performers.

R.

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.

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

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

@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.

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.

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.

@mijostyn If you use that formula using 1,000,000 instead of 1, you input R in Ohms, C in uF and the frequency is in Hz; IOW 1,000,000/RxCx2Pi

You're using a digital crossover for the amps so you don't really need to passively roll them off, right?

You might be able to boost the high frequency (+14KHz) output by using a small coupling cap to bypass the transformer. It has inter-winding capacitance anyway which is usually swamped out by loading the secondary.

@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. 

FROM A FORMER SHURE ENGINEER: - - - - - If you are attempting to make a realistic judgement between the cartridges you mentioned, I suggest you consider two things. That is, assuming you have the capability to audibly evaluate both cartridges with a common mode audio system, capable of first quality reproduction of micro detail. 

First, the SHURE you should be comparing, if you want to achieve the pinnacle of Shure audio development (which is considerable) in their final V15 version.

It's almost a given that unless you have the "luck of the Gods", you will most likely never find a "NEW" (NOS) V15V x MR. In all fairness, that is the cartridge you should be seeking if you. truly want to experience the best that SHURE ever developed (With the exception of the ULTRA 500).

That being said, there is no question in my mind about the reproduction quality of the SOUNDSMITH cartridges you have noted. I've listened to them all.

The primary considerations here have to do with not only how you, in particular hear music (auditory capability), but almost as important, what type of styles of music you mainly listen to. Simply put, I find the SOUNDSMITH cartridges more dynamic and a bit more detailed, but slightly lacking in realistic warmth, which to me is consideration that the V15V has in plenty. I prefer the Shure for vocal and Jazz and most classical recordings. It also plays well with both ANALOGUE and DIGITAL electronics. Both solid state and tube. I like the SOUNDSMITH cartridges when listening to classic POP and NEW AGE music. The more forward and punchier sound plays well here. ROCK; RAP; METAL, FUNK and the like are not on my evaluatory list, I'm afraid.  Oh yes, let's not forget country, Especially the older classic country. I give this venue to SHURE.

So, does this help? Probably not! So, all I can say is if you have any leanings at all toward the V15, try to find a V15V x MR body in first rate condition that shows no sign of wear or abuse. Then, go for the BEST grade JICO stylus for that series (There is a difference between the stylus for the V15V x MR and the V15 V MR).

I don't think you'll be sorry.

@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 

I had a Shure V15  VMR and got a Jico SAS for it on my highly modded Thorens TD-125 mkII w/Rabco SL-8E tonearm.  It was very good but nothing I did could get that extra detail, space, imaging I wanted.  After a year or so I moved on trying other cartridges and tonearms. Settled on a Technics EPC-205 mk3 w/Jico SAS.  Really great!  But still kept upgrading.  Sold the Thorens and bought a Micro Seiki BL-99V turntable, put a Technics EPA-100mk2 tonearm on it and I alternate between my Technics EPC-205 mkIV Jico SAS and a EPC-100mk3 original stylus.  I also have a Pickering XSV-4000 w/original stylus that sounds wonderful and full and images better then the Shure did.  Both Technics have more detail and air, image, speed.  

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

@mijostyn Ha, Wagner invented the "wall of sound" concept so beloved of pop promoters like Phil Spector.

Wagner’s ’temporary’ concert hall in Bayreuth is still the world’s biggest wooden building, as far as I know. Having a full orchestra effectively buried under the stage with the sound emanating from a wood lined slot must surely produce the antithesis of imaging.

Mind you, I have never been to any large-scale classical music performance where I could pin-point any instrument on the sound-stage with my eyes shut.

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.

Wow  a Shure V15 111 was very popular in the early 70s.I had one on my Technics SL 1300.

@lewm I think unamplified jazz and classical are the only genres which provide a live 'reference' against which recorded sound can be judged.

My local concert hall is in the Sydney Opera House which has just undergone a 10-year A$300-million refurbishment.  This included about A$100-million to fix the acoustics of the concert hall.  I was at the first concert after it re-opened, and the change is quite remarkable.

My partner lives in the suburb that hosted the Sydney Olympic Games so we sometimes go to outdoor concerts in the main stadium.   Groups like Queen have awesome sound reinforcement systems, but many are very poor.

Ironically the opera hall in the Opera House is undersized (it was switched during construction) so we sometimes go to amplified opera performed on a floating stage looking across the harbour.  Crazy when you think about it!

@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.  

@mijostyn Peter Walker of Quad used to do A / B demonstrations of his electrostatic loudspeakers, which were hidden behind a screen. Often B was a live string quartet.

I am not talking about dynamics in what follows, but imaging! Not just imaging, but the pin-point imaging loved by reviewers but absent in my opinion from any un-amplified live music venue.

The role reflections play is remarkable, both from the surfaces of the recording venue and of the listening space. I will always remember the utter strangeness of sound without echo.

First time was in a big anechoic chamber (anechoic = no echo!). Totally disorientating. The second time was sitting on top of Iron Knob, an abandoned ore mountain looking over the Nullabor Plain (nullabor = no trees). The Nullabor Plain is possibly the world’s largest infinite baffle. The railway line goes straight for 297 miles. There’s nothing to reflect anything, except the ground. There were no birds, no rustling of the wind, just an occasional dust trail from a vehicle 50 miles away on its way to Perth. Absolute silence and equally disorientating. My conclusion is that a great deal of what we normally hear is reflection.

I have not been to the Boston Symphony Hall, but agree that logically the ideal sweet spot has to be on the centre-line. But how far back, or even forward? One obvious singularity is where the conductor stands. Unfortunately, the conductor is almost always too close to the nearest instruments to hear the intended balance. Where else? Maybe where purist recording companies put their microphones (I am thinking Mercury)?

Norwegian 2L recording engineer Morten Lindberg recognises that all recordings are an illusion. Why not put his multi-channel microphone tree where the conductor normally stands, but push the instruments back into a circle where they carry equal sonic weight from the conductor’s position? Works for me!

My favourite 2L recording is probably Australian pianist Percy Grainger playing Grieg’s Piano Concerto, recorded way back in 1921. The piano was originally recorded as piano rolls and is replayed on a modern piano with a symphony orchestra recorded in immersive sound.

In many other ways Percy Grainger was a century ahead of his time, but that is another story.

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.

@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. 

For what it is worth, and this is for the folks here that are sneering at the Shure V15 Type II, …. I know an engineer who builds much of his own gear - speakers, amps etc - and who has 5 Grammys sitting on his fireplace mantle who says that he feels the Shure V15 Type V is the best cartridge out there. Not the best for the money. The best.

so there is that. 

I have 3 Koetsus (selling one btw), I have not taken that advice. 

@mijostyn 

"I specified the distance, 10th Row"

True, and many people would roughly agree with you.  But there is nothing mathematically special about the 10th row.  Why not the 9th or the 12th?  Or an equal distance behind the orchestra?  I hear your advice but want to also make my own mind up.  It is well worth reading Morten Lindberg's philosophy of the art of recording About 2L (Lindberg Lyd).

"It takes a full range line array from 18 Hz to 20 kHz"

If the alternative is separate dynamic drivers, then I understand where you are coming from.  But there is an alternate solution which should be better. The problem with a line array is the arrival times from the top, middle and bottom differ, which produces wave reinforcement and cancellation at various frequencies.  One symptom is that your head has to be at the 'right' height for the audio image to snap into place.  A secondary issue is that the path length differences are accentuated by reflections from room surfaces.

The solution I prefer is the virtual point source electrostatic panel invented by Peter Walker of Quad in 1963.  These panels have all the virtues of other elecrostatics, plus the point-source.  Most people including reviewers don't really get how the virtual point source works, so here's my interpretation. 

Imagine a point source of sound waves one foot behind a flat sheet of mylar.  As a wavefront starts to radiate from the point source, it first contacts the center of the mylar sheet, then progressively expands outwards in a full circle which grows in diameter.  The geometry and timing are totally determined by the speed of sound.

Peter Walker's design drives the mylar sheet electrostatically with a set of concentric anode rings carrying the audio signal.  The signal is delayed slightly to each successive ring, so the net effect (except in the plane of the panel) emulates that point source of sound a foot behind the panel.

It is not immediately obvious why this should sound good, but the answer lies in the coherence of both the direct sound and reflected sounds.  This speaker and its descendants are widely recognised as the most accurate speaker.  Note I did not say best!  For one thing, they do not play particularly loud.  When my ESL-63 pair was working, I got them louder by relieving them of bass load by using a pair of Duntech Thor sub-woofers.

Duntech was the brainchild of US physicist John Dunlavy, who moved to Australia and designed and built his high tech Sovereign speakers here.  Above all, they were designed to be loud and time-coherent. The reference speaker he used was the Quad ESL-63.  He designed the Thor to go under, which also raised the ESL to a better height.  When he returned to the US, he launched Dunlavy as a more affordable brand.

Later I replaced the Thor sub-woofers with an 18" Velodyne servo-controlled unit which can go very deep.  It comes with its own microphone and equalisation capabilities. Time coherence disappears as an issue at the long wavelengths of deep bass.

When my ESL-63 speakers started to fail, I replaced them with ESL-2905 which are identical except they have six panels instead of four, to give more bass extension, and are tilted slightly back.  This FRED (Full Range Electrostatic Doublet) goes quite low from 32-Hz to 21-kHz -6dB.  More impressively the harmonic distortion is quoted (100-dB on-axis at 1-meter) as 0.15% above 1000-Hz, 0.5% above 100-Hz and 1.0% above 50-Hz.

"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"

The final quality test for Quad is to position a reference speaker and the test exactly equidistant from a microphone. A square wave (which theoretically contains all harmonics) is played through one speaker, and out-of-phase through the other.  The speaker passes if there is complete cancellation, that is to say no output from the microphone.

"Then you put them in different locations and they become very even drastically different".  

Peter Walker made a big thing of getting the room eigenvalues right, whatever that means.  But once the speakers are positioned, you can walk around several paces without losing the imaging.  When you get close to one speaker, you can hear the sound coming from a foot behind, even when you move behind the speaker.  There is meant to be a null in the plane of the speaker, but I have two ears, and they are never both in that plane.  It is quite uncanny.

"IMHO every audiophile should have a USB measurement microphone and an audio program for their computer".

That's what I am doing with my Garrard project.  Measuring every change when playing a silent track!  One of my cartridges is a Shure V15 type III which vaguely keeps this on-topic!

Once again we seem to be in violent agreement on most things ...

Anyone remember Sonus Blue??   

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.

@richardbrand In relation to the Quad ESL Speakers, I am a user of Stacked 57's that are completely refurbished and are also incorporating a replacement Treble Panel that creates + 3dB lift to the Upper Frequency.

Within my Local Audio Group there are Fully Original 57's, Fully Original Stacked 57's, there have been 63's, both very early production models and later models, 2812 and 2912's.

My experiences had within the Audio Group, is that out of all the listening experiences had, there is only the Later production ESL 63's that did not impress in the same capacity that the other models have.

This same experience of the 63 model has extended to my hearing it in use outside of the Audio Group, when the 63 is heard and not enjoyed the likely hood is a Later Production Model is in use.

There are a Group of individuals in the UK who carry out modifications to the 63, there are suggestions a structural change was made to the later produced models  production techniques. Maybe the changes by the Group of individuals is to create the sonic that is capable of being created. Which has much closer similarities to the one that has been discovered in the earliest run of the production models.    

@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. 

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.

My First Experience of 57's in use was in the 90's probably early 90's when Tim De Paravicini demonstrated Valve Direst Driven Quads at a Audio Event I was attending at, from recollection be music being used was Pink Floyd - Pulse - Master Tape.

Being Blown Away was an understatement.

I also heard them in use by another enthusiast when I was a user of both Single and Stacked array's, (I've never really prejudiced against the Single Array). The enthusiast was a Quad Obsessed Type with experiences acquired for 57's and also had good electronic skills. Panels were Overhauled and the used panels were matched to 0.5dB from recollection. The Stacked Quad enthusiast visited was owning a Pair produced to their design, completely stripped down and rebuilt using only one set of Electronics to Drive the Speaker Design. 

Thus single electronics design, was built into a extremely rigid structure, using Black Walnut as the Framing, these really shone as a Speaker. The Source and Amplification was poor for what a Quad ESL 57 really deserves, but this speaker design really shone for its capability.

My Gut Instinct is that the Typical Stacked Array will have been noticeably bettered by the new design for the Stacked Array heard. Especially with a improved Source and Amplification.  This is also a design I would really enjoy putting together as a retirement project, where I would be reliant on a EE friend who renovates 57's. Getting the Panels matched to 0.5dB will for me not be something achieved unless having luck with me.

As for the Super Tweeter, I have heard the Super Tweeter from Townsend in use with 57's, but can not recall anything really memorable and requiring to be wanted to be reproduced, but maybe that is because I never heard them coupled as a A/B demo with them cut out and on use, as I have had demo's with quite few Subwoofers I have heard coupled to the Speakers.

As for the High Frequency / Low Frequency Driver Designs to be attached to the Quad ESL 57.

My own intention is to one day have a Audax Gold Dome Piezo HD-3P Tweeter coupled to the 57's. This Driver is one which I and friend have collected samples and devised methods for refurbing the and re-charging the reservoir. This is then enabling the Driver to become very usable for long periods of time, longer that the design from the Manufacturer. My take and my friends take, is that these might be one of the best Upper Frequency Drivers ever produced for the end sonic they are able to deliver. The Driver produces sound by stretching the Gold Coated Diaphragm, which is very much a design to be coupled with a Film that produces an energy to be converted to sound. The Subwoofer choice is a Ripole Design, just to see how a figure of eight radiation will blend with the 57's figure of eight radiation pattern. 

My friend who refurb's the ESL 57's has chosen their own was of assembling an array when they take their 57's out to be publicly demonstrated, the Speakers are reorientated to have the Panels Treble and Bass Panels longest sides placed on the Horizontal. The Speakers are usually Spread across an are of approx' 16 feet.

My Amp's had Tranx's specifically wound with the 845 Valve to be used to Drive the Quad ESL 57. When out at shows doing Public Demo's of my Audio System, the most common asked Question is about the Subwoofer I have selected to be used with the Subwoofer. Quite strange facial expressions are seen when informing there is not a Subwoofer. On one occasion, a Show was local to one of the UK's most renowned overhaulers of the ESL 57. A show attendee who new the Company owner personally contacted the owner, encouraging them to attend and listen to my Quads. I was told this during the latter part of the show on Day 2. The Company owner did attend, but did not introduce themselves, so I didn't get the chance to inquire about their own impression of the set up.

Quads with the correct approach can present Bass Just Fine, I learnt that in the room with TDP and the Valve Direct Driven Design. For my purposes, my own design for them produces and end sound and Bass very similar to what TDP had achieved, my recollections used many many years ago reassured myself of this. In the modern day, when I introduce my owned Three Way Floor Standing Cabinet Speakers into the System, the only Bass Issue is the Cabinet Bass and Panel Bass are noticeable for their differences, but not the extension differences that might be different for each Speaker Type. 

Recently I have heard a Cabinet Speaker in a friends system, that I believe would easily trounce the ESL 57, I could even buy into the Design as it is a Troels Gravesen design for a Speaker. Interesting one this one, as I recently learnt that Troels has seemingly used Quad ESL's and EAR Amp's designed by TDP  to learn about how a Speaker can be Voiced.     

Wow, this is getting interesting!

Hopefully this is my last quote from Peter Walker of Quad on the subject of speakers: "Anybody can build an electrostatic loudspeaker.  The trick is to build one that lasts" or some such.  

In the 18 years between inventing and releasing the ESL-63 to the market, Peter built in many protections.  The most effective, in my opinion, is an incipient ionization detector that senses when sparking is about to occur.  Other measures include reducing the instantaneous signal voltage when it gets to 40-Volts and shutting it down at 56-Volts.

A very influential person in the modification space was the founder of SME, Alastair Robertson-Aikman,.who tried stacked ESL-63 speakers (stacked at right angles).  He beefed up the frames, and tilted the panel back slightly.  Quad made a beefed-up ESL-63 for studio use, and Robert's ideas found their way into subsequent Quads like the ESL-2905 which I use now.  Ironically, despite the massive weight bolted to the base, the standard floor spikes, the reinforced frame and the stressed triangulated support bar at the rear, the panels themselves still float in a foam surround.

My source, apart from general reading and personally meeting Peter Walker and pulling apart and rebuilding ESL-63 and ESL-2905 speakers, is the book by Ken Kessler which is included, along with white gloves, with each pair of ESL-2905 speakers.  The square wave test reportedly caused over half the production to be rejected.  Production has now moved from England to China, where much more attention is paid to details of assembly.  For example, every screw for the grills is also cemented, and every wire is hot-melt glued wherever it traverses a slot in the panel frame.  The Chinese have not been as successful with the adhesive used to attach the mylar film, and most of my panels have needed repair over say 20 years There are 12 panels per pair.of 2905, 8 for 63s.

The Finnish company Gradient made ob/dipole subs for both the QUAD ESL and QUAD 63 back in the 1980’s/90’s, but they were not built to perfectionist standards. They were somewhat similar to the ob/dipole woofer system Siegfried Linkwitz used in his LX521 loudspeaker.

The OB/Dipole woofer system offered by GR Research in partnership with Rythmik Audio is similar, but of much higher quality and performance. Two or three (or more, your choice) 12" woofers (optimized for open baffle applications) installed in an H-frame (though the woofers may also be installed in an M/W frame, as Linkwitz did), with a Rythmik Audio plate amp that includes servo-feedback control of the woofers, along with a dipole cancellation compensation circuit. THE woofer to use if you want to add subs to your QUADS.

@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. 

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. 

Dear @harpo75  : " Sold the Thorens and bought a Micro Seiki BL-99V turntable, put a Technics EPA-100mk2 tonearm on it and I alternate between my Technics EPC-205 mkIV Jico SAS and a EPC-100mk3 original stylus.  I also have a Pickering XSV-4000 w/original stylus that sounds wonderful and full and images better then the Shure did.  Both Technics have more detail and air, image, speed.  "

You arejust rigthand that's because the Shure V15 V MR was and is part of the vintage MM cartridge mediocrity/average not a very good performer where exist several MM and MI vintage cartridges way superior. Shure is an inferior cartridge.

R.

I spoke with Roger Modjeski about using subs with the QUAD ESL. He recommended a crossover point of 100hz with a 4th-order filter (24dB/octave). In his own ESL speakers, he used those figures and an 8" sealed woofer. He also made a direct-drive OTL amp to power them.

No matter how many OB/Dipole sub users testify to the success they have achieved mating them with dipole planar loudspeakers, @mijostyn insists on repeating his opinion that OB/Dipole subs can't and don't "work". Yes they can, and yes they do.

Siegfried Linkwitz used them successfully, as does Danny Richie of GR Research. So does Audiogon member @jaytor, mating them with the fantastic NEO 3 and NEO 8 planar-magnetic drivers. They are also being used in conjunction with Magnepan and Eminent Technology p-m speakers, and assorted ESL's. Regular old dynamic speakers, too.

@stereo5 

"I bought the Shure V15-4 body and a new Jico SAS with the boron cantilever.  I love it!  ...  It is also better than my Audio Technica VM540 MM cartridge."

I missed your post in the off-topic noise (I plead guilty).

I have a Shure V15 type III and am just getting back into vinyl.  Was about to buy the Jico SAS / boron stylus, but could get the AT cartridge complete at the same price.  My Shure has the hyper-elliptic stylus.  Can you please describe the differences you are hearing?

@lewm 

"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."

The ESL-57 was never designed to emulate a point source.  That innovation first came with the ESL-63 released about 25 years later.  I know of no other speaker family that uses annular electrode elements and time delays.  Time delays are implemented with about 12 miles of wire between elements.  It would be much easier to do today with digital signal processing but you would need an amplifier channel for every ring, that is eight per speaker!

The original ESL most closely resembles a line source, albeit lined sideways not vertically.  The slight vertical curve suggests vertical stacking as in a modern stadium PA system

@mijostyn 

"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."

Plenty of speakers use dynamic drivers mounted back to back, usually with their cages rigidly fixed together. Newton's Law of action and reaction ensure that dynamic forces exactly cancel.  One example is the sideways facing woofers in KEF's Blade, which is designed to act as a point source, but unfortunately is out of my price range!