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

Dear @mijostyn  :  " So, it is fun to hear what we were listening to back then. Now, What cartridge is mounted in your turntable at this moment?? "

 

Well I don't do it just for fun but for the MUSIC overall presentation.

 

Several vintage cartridges are a true challenge and even can outperforms to some top today MC/MM/MI cartridges and you can't know till you listen with your today system. Shure is not a reference for what I'm talking about, far away from there.

 

I'm listening: Audio Technica AT-ML160-LC/OCC (MM), Audio Tecnica AT 36 ( VLOMC ) and the surprising LOMC Empire MC5.

 

Both AT are " something "and the AT 36 has new cantilever and stylus due that my original one had not by a mistake from me but its cartridge motor is just a beauty..

Everthing I do in my system is in favor of MUSIC enjoyment always. 

 

@lewm  "  what is striking in comparison to any home audio system is the dynamics of live music, as opposed to pinpoint imaging, which was the subject of that discussion.  "

 

Absolutely rigth an that dynamics is developed thank's to the very fast transient response of instruments in a live MUSIC.

 

R.

My Limited Experiences of having been able to hear Quad ESL Speakers in use with a Subwoofer, is that the carefully matched ESL>Subwoofer is is a set up that had a addition of Bass that is detectable, but certainly not an improvement, the Bass being noticeable does not augment the ESL as a Speaker it merely produces a unique type of Bass presentation in conjunction with another Speakers unique Bass presentation.

Remove the Bass from the Subwoofer as a influence on the ESL Bass and what is left is a Speaker functioning with a Bass that is satisfying and not effected by a Bass that is seemingly an anomaly.

It is because of this sensing that the Subwoofer is an anomaly, that has drawn my attention to a Ripole Bass and the Figure of Eight Radiation the Ripole produces. The design seems to lend itself to be much less detectable as a Separate Source for a Bass Driver coupled with the Bass from the ESL.

@dogberry

@mijostyn

I bought an 18" Velodyne servo-controlled subwoofer to replace my Duntech Thors, back when my main speakers were Quad ESL-63. One undoubted advantage is that, by relieving the Quads of low bass, they can play much louder before their protection circuits come into play.

The bigger Quad ESL-2905 has about twice the bass panel area, and does not really benefit much from the Velodyne, which ticks by on level 3 out of 60. Most of what I play is orchestral and the only instruments that go really deep are organs (and maybe venues?)

Oops, I forgot the revolutionary Australian Stuart and Sons 108-key piano which extends the 'normal' piano range by two octaves, all the way down to 16-Hz.  Those low strings add sonority even when playing standard repertoire. The bridge design provides downward rather than sideways coupling, and the pianos are much brighter than popular European heavyweights.

 

I share with @lewm and @mijostyn admiration for the Magnepan ribbon tweeter, which is found in the Tympani T-IVa’s. The planar-magnetic midrange driver of the T-IVa (unfortunately single-ended), however, is somewhat veiled, especially in comparison with just about any and all ESL’s as well as the p-m midrange driver of the Eminent Technology LFT-8b and 8c, which is of push-pull design and construction, a big deal.

There are a group of guys active on the Planar Speaker Asylum forum who replaced the T-IVa’s midrange driver with eight of the fabulous NEO 8 p-m drivers, which with a little fiddling fit into the slot in the frame of the T-IVa’s for that Magnepan midrange driver. Mated with the Magnepan ribbon tweeter and the two Tympani bass panels (Harry Pearson made his "super speaker" using those bass panels with the Infinity EMIT and EMIM drivers), the resulting loudspeaker is reported to be significantly more transparent than the stock T-IVa.

While the Eminent Technology LFT-8b may not be up the level of the SoundLab ESL’s, they cost only $3200 a pair. That is just about the same price as a pair of Magnepan MG1.7i’s (also with a single ended midrange driver), which imo (and that of Steve Guttenberg) is not in the same league as the LFT-8. One problem with the LFT-8 is that the crossover point from the p-m midrange driver to the ribbon tweeter is located at 10kHz, with 1st-order filters. Those filters characteristics coupled with the short wavelength of 10kHz leads to the inevitable comb filter behavior of the driver interaction. I trust I don’t have to explain comb filtering. wink I’d love for Danny Richie to get a hold of a pair, and design a crossover with filters at, say, 2 to 3kHz.

Guttenberg found the sealed enclosure 8" woofer of the LFT-8 to mate very well with the planar-magnetic driver, but an 8" woofer can be expected to play only so low, and not at lifelike spl. However, since the crossover point between the woofer and midrange driver is at a very low 180Hz, the GR Research/Rythmik Audio OB/Dipole Sub (you can disregard the opinion of @mijostyn---he hasn’t heard it)---which is capable of playing up to 300Hz---can be substituted for the stock woofer. The resulting combination provides 100% open baffle/dipole operation, with deep, clean reproduction from 20Hz to 20kHz. Guttenberg found the sound of the LFT-8 to possess the best characterisics of ESL’s and planar-magnetics, without their (in his opinion) failings. Since getting my pair of LFT-8b’s, my Tympani T-IVa’s and QUADS have been relegated to a spare room.