2. analog
  3. 191535-129831

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
lewm
13,156 posts
 

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. 

Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,101 posts
 

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.

bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,860 posts
 

 

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.

 

richardbrand's avatar
richardbrand
213 posts
 

@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?

richardbrand's avatar
richardbrand
213 posts
 

@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

More to discover