I think some cables are just a little too expensive.

@mikelavigne Thank you for the update.  I previously saw your Evolution MMs on some equipment review(s) but I didn't put 2 & 2 together.  I had a local dealer who discontinued the Von Schweikert line and kept the B&W line (very inferior in my opinion).  I've been told that the VR 9SE Mark II is much upgraded from the original you had.  I want to keep my amps (125w tube monoblocks) and VS told me I would need more power for the VR55s.  The Evolutions MM3s would be the largest speaker my room could accommodate.  My room is also superior design/construction but is only 19'6" X 16' X 10' interior dimensions so larger speakers are out.  Other than the big problem you had ordering the VR11s, would you still consider the Ultra 9 or 11 if you didn't have your Evolution MM 7s?  The only other speaker I considered were the Lumenwhite Kyaras (also efficient) but they are too small a company for me to sink $40-$60K into.

Other than the big problem you had ordering the VR11s, would you still consider the Ultra 9 or 11 if you didn’t have your Evolution MM 7s?

absolutely; the VR11 Ultra is the only dynamic cone speaker besides my MM7’s with similar mid bass driver surface. which is a huge issue in ease and transparency. i've heard the VR11 Ultra's and VR9 Ultra's at shows and loved both of them, my only issue is both are silly expensive. my MM7's are bargains in comparison and have equal at least performance.

and the Ultra series now uses ceramic mids and woofers like my MM7’s.

i did like the VR9SE Mk2’s, but not as much as i liked the MM3’s.....or the MM3 Exact’s.

you can’t go wrong with Von Schweikert’s or Evolution Acoustics.

Cables? Again? The short of it is buy what you can afford and be happy with them. But if I was a gazillionare I’d not spend thousands on cables. What a waste. 

Legacy Audio's upper models also feature more bass/mid driver surface area. That is one of Bill Dudleston's hallmarks of design. 

I concur on the benefit of such designs, but it should be understood that by necessity the multiplicity of drivers, while yielding the ease and what I would term "presence," does not create the precise same coherence and precision that some prefer in a simpler (i.e. less drivers) design. It is possible to get a more tight (Some would consider that to be more accurate, which is quite subjective) sound from a simpler design. I enjoy both and can hear advantages to both. Legacy Audio's Valor employs a huge concentric driver, which brings several of these advantages together. BTW, in the top three models there are drivers not immediately evident, but contribute to the higher amount of driver surface area of the bass and midrange.  

On the other end of the spectrum, a speaker such as the Kingsound King III electrostatic has the enveloping, spatially grand character of the big dynamic speakers, but without the attributes of the dynamic drivers. The scale of the VR and Evolution models can be attained, if not identically, certainly similarly in other speakers. YMMV 

I am in agreement with Mike in regard to those who have not used upper end cables have a blind spot as to what they can do for an audio system. My experience has been to avoid passively networked cables, but well built and designed cables that are not cost-no-object can yield striking performance. Cheaper cables I have tried (several) have no elegance. 

The Legacy and Kingsound speakers were reviewed by myself for Dagogo.com 

Expensive cables are no more a waste than expensive analogue. 

If you don't think so, prove it. Go ahead, use the data, the objective criteria you say is missing with cables. Show me. Go get the graphs that demonstrate the better plinth, motor, arm, cartridge actually makes better sound. 

Bunch of hypocrites around here.  :)