The Shure V15 V with a Jico SAS/B stylus VS The Soundsmith Hyperion MR and Lyra Atlas SL

@dover yes, I listened to it most of the day yesterday. The sound was definitely less harsh, better, but after listening to 5 records that I know really well I best describe the overall performance as flat, flat in terms of excitement and visceral involvement, less dynamic than todays best cartridges. It is also way more sensitive to surrounding electro magnetic fields resulting in more background noise than all of my other cartridges. It is also more microphonic than all of my other cartridges. How it compares to other $500 cartridges I can't say. The high output cartridges that I have listened to lately including the Clearaudio Charisma and the Soundsmith voice are superior in every way sonically. The Soundsmith Voice was also playing through the phono stage of the DEQX Pre 8 in a system centered around Magico S7s and the pair sounded wonderful. This is not the fault of the phono stage. My other cartridges, all low output are played through a Channel D Seta L Plus which I am thrilled with. 

@audioquest4life It is the new microridge version and I have absolutely no complaints. It and the Lyra Atlas Lambda SL are, in my system the two best cartridges I have ever used. I am going to try the My Sonic Lab Ultra Eminent EX as it has the lowest impedance of any cartridge I know of. The Seta L will do both voltage and current mode. In current mode the cartridge with the lowest impedance wins and I am betting that it will outperform the Signature Platinum, a good cartridge, but not as exciting as the Hyperion or the Atlas in my system. 

@pindac That is an assumption that is simply not true. You can not compare the reproduction of very low frequencies with higher frequencies. Matching subwoofers so the system is completely unified is not easy. It is not any more difficult with dipole speakers as long as the crossover point does not go much over 100 Hz. The benefit in terms of distortion and headroom/dynamics in ESLs can not be overstated. 

@lewm Acoustat 2+2s run correctly with subwoofers out perform 57s in every way and you have to throw a Javelin at them to cause any damage. I used a single Sowter 1:100 transformer on each one along with my own adjustable bias supply. Their one weakness is their horizontal dispersion is very limited almost as bad a Roger Sanders speakers. 

@richardbrand  That is some piano.

Next time you try subwoofers please use at least two. Not only will your ESLs play louder, but if you cross higher at 100 Hz, distortion levels in the ESLs will drop noticeably. The problem is getting the subwoofer to disappear. At 100 Hz you have to use very steep filters at least 8th order. The only way to do this cleanly is in the digital realm. The benefits far outweigh any detriment. There is loads of low bass in good classical recordings. Large indoor venues breath at low frequencies, then there is the Tympany, Organs and massed strings. In order to get realistic low frequency performance in a residential space 20 Hz has to be boosted up to 10 dB. This will cause serious problems in most speakers, but not subwoofers. Done correctly subwoofers will give you the FEELING of a live performance while improving the performance of the main speakers. Unfortunately, it is much easier to screw things up then get the desired result and the manufacturers do not help.

@bdp24 You definitely do not want to mention comb filtering around me, it could put you in mortal danger. I spent two months trying desperately to stop it as it was confusing the computer in my DEQX preamplifier. The solution required about 50 hours of shop work and you can see it on my virtual system page. It was initially designed by Dr Roger West. I modified the design by making it a foot wider and using 8" wedges instead of 6" wedges. Dr West calls it SALLIE, Sound Attenuation of Low Level Interference Effects. They worked. 

@lewm The Sound Labs makes that impression on everyone who sees them. Nobody is use to seeing monoliths like them. Just because they are HUGE does not mean they make great low bass. They make great mid bass. I stand by my opinion. Just 15 minutes listening and I will change your approach to HiFi forever especially since you are already 75% of the way there.

Mijostyn, I always get the impression that you read but do not take the time to understand what I and others write. How can you really know that Acoustat 2+2s outperform a stacked Quad 57 with all the modifications I described? I am quite sure you’ve never heard the Quad system, because it is one of a kind. Whereas, I have many hours listening to both the modified Quads and Acoustat 2+2s. Yes, I am offering a subjective opinion based on some aural data. And then you add in that if by chance the Acoustats were found wanting, it must be because they were not properly driven. Your mind is closed.

Then in your last paragraph you tell me what I already candidly admitted about the bass response of my Sound Labs, even keeping in mind that we once calculated that my speakers have a greater radiating area than yours and so almost assuredly do better in the low bass than yours do without subwoofers. At the same time, I recognize that you went for the smaller panels because you knew in advance you were going to use subwoofers. You got the right version for yourself, and I got the right version for myself. Nothing wrong with that, and I am sure you have more extended bass response than I do. I still sleep at night.

Seems you are hearing the Shure V15 in much the same way that I heard the V15 in my system 40 or so years ago (probablyi version III); flat response but dry and a bit dull.  I didn't keep it for very long. This does not mean that all vintage cartridges are inferior to very expensive modern LOMCs, categorically, at least in my opinion.

@mijostyn My Velodyne 18" subwoofer is digitally controlled, with digital crossover and servo control of the cone for under 0.5% harmonic distortion.  It has 8-band parametric equalisation and 1250-Watts RMS power.  If I am not careful, it rattles the windows and brick walls too much.  It adds about two octaves to the Quad 2905 but most of that is felt, not heard.  Like you, I am a big fan of walking around to see how the audio image holds up.

On swept tones, the sound is dreadful as various room modes kick in.  Additional subwoofers would help, but musically I am in my own sort of heaven!

@mijostyn Assumption ? Please Clarify 

I usually am doing my best to share only my experiences had and an very subjective assessment will be attached, if I feel it is worth the mention.

As always, I don't expect anybody within the Current Thread to endorse my input, it is quite obvious the common posters are not able to cojoin.

My Input is directed to the onlookers of the thread or future thread visitors, who  might get some value from the content added. 

I was once a Visitor, then a Regular Onlooker and developed into a valuable contributor.  

@lewm You apparently do not listen to me either Lew. I was one of the very first people in the entire world to mess around with stacked Quads. It was the brainchild of Mark Levinson and John Curl. It was called the HQD system. Levinson marketed an Oak stand that held the stacked Quads with a little window in the center for the Decca Ribbon tweeter. I'm sure you can find a picture. We had the full system set up at Sound Components in Miami. I have talked endlessly about the poor reliability of both the Quads and the Decca. It was powered by six  25 watt class a amps. God knows how much power they put out in B mode. I have WAY more experience with Quads then you will ever have. I have taken them apart, exchanged elements and blown them up a second time. On the other hand you have no experience with Acoustats. Granted, the methods supplied by the manufacturer to drive them were somewhat crippled, but the panels were genius. They were the first ESL panels made that you could not burn out. All they needed to shine was a good transformer, the right amp and subwoofers.