Shure V15VxMR to be discontinued

The Shure's suffer from non-linear distortions that are amplitude based. The louder the recorded passage, the more distortion that you get.

I think that this has a lot to do with cantilever rigidity ( or lack of it ). This is why the Shure tends to sound slightly squashed, mushy, grungy and fuzzy on peaks i.e. all of the energy in the groove isn't translated into vertical deflection. This is due to flexing of their thin walled hollow telescopic cantilever design. On top of that, the increased loss of vertical deflection helps to keep the stylus in the groove, which improves trackability but lessens sonic accuracy. Now factor in the "dynamic stabilizer" and you've got yet another reason why the Shure can stay in the groove. That is, the dynamic stabilizer acts as a shock absorber for the cantilever.

While Shure was shooting for reduced tip mass and the associated increase in "tip speed", they ended up trading off efficient energy transfer characteristics in the process by using a less rigid cantilever. Not only is there less cross section area in a telescoping design, you also have more "slop" where the individual segments of the assembly are joined together. That is, in comparison to a one piece cantilever where there are no segmented joints to worry about.

On top of that, surface noise consists of very rapid rise time transients. Since the Shure ends up losing much of the very fast, high amplitude impulse power of a "tick" or "pop" due to the aforementioned lack of cantilever deflection, it tends to sound somewhat smoother, softer and quieter. While this brings a somewhat endearing quality to records in poor shape, it is far from accurate or "good" at doing its job. That job consists of translating energy contained in the grooves to music coming out of your speakers in an accurate fashion. After all, if we lose information at the source, you can't recover it elsewhere. In effect, the Shure is coloured, but in a way that is euphonicly pleasant* to many people's ears. Sean
>

PS... If the Shure actually had lower reciprocating mass, it would have a higher resonant frequency than it does. In this regards, the Stanton 881S is superior as it offers wider bandwidth. Wider bandwidth means faster rise and fall times with increased accuracy and treble detail due to a reduction in overshoot and ringing. That wider bandwidth is achieved due to both a more efficient motor structure and lower moving mass. The 881S also has tighter channel balance, for more precise stereo imaging. The bottom line is a more natural presentation than that of the Shure, IF properly dialed in.

PPS... The original 881S stylus assembly is superior to that of the 881S Mk II. If you can find them and want the best performance from this cartridge, get one of the originals. You can always use the stylus assembly that came with the Mk II cartridge as a spare or replacement as needed.

PPSS... The Stanton is lower output than the Shure, so you may need more gain in the phono stage.

*STEREOPHILE July, 1997
Cold out of the box, the V15 sounded warm. Over time it got even warmer, though the bass tightened up a bit. By any definition, the new V15VxMR is a warm, sweet-sounding cartridge. Its basic nature, coupled with its superb tracking ability, yielded a completely grain- and etch-free sonic picture that was never fatiguing or hard-sounding. Michael Fremer

Sean...Interesting discussion of the V15's characteristics. Strange though that you finish up with the favorable comment from Stereophile.

ALL phono pickups increase in distortion as the groove modulation increases, rather dramatically for the very loud passages. Overcoming this problem was, in my opinion, the greatest advantage of DBX-processed LP's.

For those who missed out on the brief period of DBX LP availability, DBX LP processing was similar to Dolby processing for cassette tapes, and involved dynamic range compression when the disk was cut, and complementary expansion when it was played back. This meant that the pickup was always near its optimum operating conditions. Never too soft, so that surface noise was offensive, and never too loud so as to cause increased distortion. Most people were blown away by the noise reduction, like a CD, but I found that improved pickup performance was very noticeable. (And not only with the Shure pickup).

Incidentally, the comparison between Dolby and DBX in the business sense is informative. DBX would not license its process to other hardware manufacturers, or charged a very high fee. Dolby practically gave away their chips, so that they quickly appeared in every tape deck. Dolby was among the first to realize that there is more money to be made in software than in hardware.

"Dolby was among the first to realize that there is more
money to be made in software than in hardware."

Wonder if Sony will ever catch on (DSD)?

El: The Stereophile review basically says that the cartridge lacks high frequency response and articulation, resulting in a noticeably warm and relaxed sound. That "warmth" is a side-effect of the non-linear cantilever deflection. High frequency notes are neither high in amplitude or long in duration, so the smaller vertical deflections with shorter time periods get lost in the translation. The more high frequency articulation that one loses, the "warmer" that something sounds.

When it comes to Stereophile, you have to be able to read what ISN'T said and how they avoid saying it. Sean
>

PS... What ISN'T a "positive review" in Stereophile? Speakers that measure +8 / -3 dB's are ranked "Class A", amplifiers that generate non-linear distortions and lack stability are ranked "Class A", etc...

I guess I am not up on Stereophilespeak.

I question your suggestion that the V15 lacks HF response. I have seen frequency response plots (might have been in Shure literature) that look fine, and my own tests with a test LP (back when I could still hear the high end) always were OK.

Bottom line for me is that we are debating about who makes the best buggy whip.