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

@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?