Diamond Stylus Enters the 4th Dimension

Good news. Sam Arnold from Elusive Disc called to tell me that Ken from Musical Surroundings wanted me to email him the USB Micro pictures of the cantilever and he would send a new cartridge right out! Sh-t Happens.
It is what you do about it that counts.

daveyf, it was 3+3 and 4+4. All of them were 8 feet tall. The Acoustats were worlds tougher than Quads. It is almost impossible to blow an Acoustat. I have personally been party to the destruction of three Quads. This is no comment on current units just the old ones. As for sound quality it depended on how you drove them. Given a powerful class A amp the Acoustat 3's could sound just as good as quads. Once you get to the 8 foot guys it should be no comparison as the sound stage is larger and more detailed than stacked quads which do not form line sources. Again you need a high test amp. We have not even talked about subwoofers yet. My ancient 2+2's with subwoofers will do 110 db all day long. I certainly do not need larger speakers for volume reasons. I rarely go above 95 dB. I would really like better horizontal dispersion which Sound Labs speakers offer. Finding 3+3s is virtually impossible. If I could find good clean panels I could make them but more than likely I will switch over to Sound Labs. 

One last note.

Ken Bowers of Musical Surroundings is sending me a new cartridge with a return label for the old one just based on the USB micro pics you can see on my system page. You could not possible ask for a better performance. Kudos to Elusive Disc, Musical Surroundings and Clearaudio. 

@mijostyn I think you are right, the Acoustat 6 and the model 8 were in fact doubled up three’s and fours. I seem to remember that they were not called 3+3 or 4+4 though. I did think that the stacked Quad’s were more revealing and accurate in their timbre and midrange reproduction.
I could never get my Acoustat 3’s to really sound that great, the Maggie’s that I sold to buy them, where in my system far superior sounding. The Maggie's were just so much more accurate in their bottom end response and imaged with greater precision. At the time i was using a Counterpoint preamp and a Melos tube amp...perhaps that was the issue??

I use the DS Audio ST-50. On my Dynavector Karat 17DX. Is that similar to the Oznow?

Yes daveyf your problem was the amp. They did much better with class A SS amps. They also had to be aimed right at you unlike the Maggies. The bass was never that great. You either needed subwoofers or one of the 8 foot versions to get decent bass. I had Monitor 4's mounted on top of RH 
Labs subwoofers. That was a very potent system The 4's were using Acoustat's high voltage tube amp. But I didn't fall in love with the Acoustats until the 2+2's. A full spectrum line source is a thing to behold.
Everything becomes life size and the projection is much better. I went to Apogee Divas for a while. After 6 years out of frustration I returned to the 2+2's were I have stayed for some 20 odd years. Only the tall Sound Labs speakers are of interest to me. I would not mind a little more horizontal dispersion and efficiency. The other advantage of these speakers is no crossover. They are truly full range although IMHO they do much better when you take the bass away from them. The digital cross over I use can be dialed in perfectly.