Dear @richardbrand : " My Velodyne 18" subwoofer is ..."
Wel, you can be sure that 2 subs always is better than only one listening at the prefered seat position.
I own Velodyne too but with better wooferbuild material: pulp/paper.
R.
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.
Dear @richardbrand : " My Velodyne 18" subwoofer is ..."
Wel, you can be sure that 2 subs always is better than only one listening at the prefered seat position.
I own Velodyne too but with better wooferbuild material: pulp/paper.
R.
|
Ah, so much to take in. Yes, my Velodyne has stereo high pass digital filters which is how I relieve my Krell / Quad ESL-63 / ESL-2905 of having to play low bass. It is also old enough to have a pulp/paper cone but if the servo mechanism is good enough, who cares? The only things stopping me adding more are: the cost; the space; the fragility of my home; the fragility of my partner; the neighbours and ROI. The original Quad ESL is often known as the ... ESL. But it is totally different in concept, design and implementation to the later Quad ESLs which have factory designation not less than 63. The original ESL, aka ESL-57, uses a curved panel (much later this was apparently "invented" by Sound labs) to give an approximation of a line-source, albeit horizontal. Like modern stadium systems, these can be stacked vertically. Stadium so-called line source systems are curved in the vertical dimension to get them to emulate a point source! It is of course rather hard to bend a flat panel in two dimensions simultaneously. The ESL-63 and later models use fancy electrics and shaped electrodes to get a truly flat panel to emulate a point source. It makes no sense at all to stack them, nor to remove the electrics which are their unique raison d'etre in my opinion. |
I am not certain, but if the Quad 57 is curved at all, it is curved in the vertical plane, not in the horizontal plane. And anyway, Sound Lab ought not to claim to be the first to curve an ESL in the horizontal plane, because Martin-Logan did it first with their flagship CLS model, albeit in a problematic way. (They used curve stators with the diaphragm suspended inside a curved "sandwich"; thus when the diaphragm moves toward the listener it wants to stretch, when it moves away from the listener, it is looser than in the rest position.)To be fair to SL, I doubt they ever did claim to be the first to curve an ESL. Sound Lab uses flat facet segments arranged in a curved array, thus avoiding the inherent issue with the M-L CLS but also perhaps fairly described as not a true curve.. Also, "ESL" is a generic acronym for ElectroStatic Loudspeaker. In my lifetime, I never heard the Quad 57, so numerically named for the year of its introduction, referred to as an ESL57, but I certainly can be wrong on that. We just say "Quad 57". On the "line source" descriptor, it was my impression that Peter Walker incorporated time delay into electronics mounted inside the speaker so as to create the radiation pattern of a point source, not a line source. Again, I would be happy to be corrected if that is bad info. Whether that was a good idea or not is also open to question. |
@lewm Yes, the Quad 57 (your nomenclature) is indeed curved in the vertical dimension, which effectively focusses the sound on a horizontal line behind the speaker. Most other speakers claiming 'line source' have a virtual line which is vertical! We now recognise the 57 as having three panels in a d'Appolito configuration, though unusually this is horizontal with a central treble flanked by two bass panels. Get off-center, and the bass panels start to differ in path-length, meaning there is a very small sweet-spot. When the Quad 57 was re\eased in 1957 it was just the ESL. Sound Labs "The Complete White Paper" states "The electrostatic speaker art was in its infancy when Sound Lab started business back in 1978" which is a bit rich considering Quad sold 54,000 pairs of the original 57, starting 21 years earlier. I have many other quibbles with the white paper, especially when it groups dynamic speakers as point sources, which most certainly aren't. Only the ESL-63 and later had the radiation pattern of a point source. Whereas the 57 has a very small sweet-spot (sideways!) speakers that emulate a point source have a very large listening area. The ESL 63 is often reported as the world's most accurate speaker, since it has a very light diaphragm, effectively no cabinet coloration, no crossover colouration, and a coherent radiation pattern with no cancellation / reinforcement interference patterns if reflections are ignored.. The 2905 has amplifier-like distortion measurements. And if it doesn;t play loud enough for you, you can just sit closer! Note that I am not claiming it is the world's best speaker, just very accurate. Peter Walker's perfect amplifier is "a straight wire with gain". The 63 and later aim for the same neutrality "If you don't like what comes out, pay more attention to what goes in" he said. |