Phono Stage upgrade to complement Dohmann Helix One Mk 2

Can you feel the Schumann Resonant frequency?

Agree, Raul.  And no one brings up that point, that when the wave length of the tone exceeds the size of the listening space, there is a problem.

Drbond has a new phono stage, and it’s not a Herron.

We have the "automotive crew" to thank for ear-damaging incoherent bass thumps, not music.

drbond, I love classical music and especially I love Bach, because he would have been a great jazz composer.  I just have the Clint Eastwood approach to deepest bass: "A man's got to know his limitations."  Which in this case means I would not make the sacrifices or put up the cash needed to generate 16Hz in my listening room.  There is probably only one actual organ (let alone an audio system) in the DC area that can reproduce that note, at the National Cathedral, about 4-5 miles from our house. But I admire your determination.

As I mentioned about a week ago, you’re in good hands with Duke. You’ll be going to a lot of trouble to hear one lowest note in one piece of music, which I presume is emanating from a mighty organ pipe.

Fathom is another company that make expensive high end (or high end because expensive) subwoofers complete with x-over and amplifier. I's sure without looking that Wilson Audio do too.

If you really wanna go crazy, and if you have a big room, ask Sound Labs about their B1 ESL subwoofer.

Yes you would. (Have trouble convincing me.)

 Mijo, You wrote, "Analog crossovers add distortion and phase shifts. Some can shift phase 180 degrees with a knob but only by ear which is a trial and error nightmare."  Do you seriously believe that doing a DAC to ADC conversion, where also the signal is manipulated in the digital domain, in the signal path adds no distortion?  With the very steep filters you favor, there would be phase shift too; does your TACT enable you to correct for phase shift?  For me, phase shift is a non-issue, because with my speakers and no crossover, neither I nor anyone else can hear a 180 degree change of phase. Double-blind tested with my wife and son and other experienced listeners.  Once you add a subwoof, I suppose that phase between the main ESL and the subwoof needs to be set appropriately, but that is easy; there is just one variable.  I credit your taste in components (other than the digital ones), which makes me very curious to hear your system some day.  Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

If you look at the Stereophile review of even the old SoundLab A1, they measured the panel as flat out past 20kHz, so the need for a super tweeter escapes me. But of course ESLs do beam at HF. Depends where you sit, and your hearing acuity. Your present digital volume control would seem to be wanting in fidelity. Ok if you can run wide open.

drbond, In most cases both the HPF and the LPF built in to a high grade commercial sub would be ACTIVE filters, not the same as just inserting a capacitor in series with your main ampifier, which is a PASSIVE filter. The difference is that in an active or electronic crossover, usually there are some active gain components that correct for insertion loss (remember insertion loss from way back up this thread?). A side benefit of an active (electronic) crossover is you don’t have to be concerned too much about the input and output impedance of the driven and driving devices. In other words, you don’t have to worry about the input Z of the amplifier you are connecting to. Remember I mentioned that your amp with a 22K ohm input impedance needs about 0.1uF capacitance to roll off below 80Hz? With an active crossover set at 80Hz, you could buy a new amplifier with a very different input Z and not have to change anything. Also, you can just twist a knob to experiment with a lower or higher HPF point, if 80Hz is not satisfying. With a passive filter, you would have to re-calculate the capacitance and install the new value.

Also, your thinking about the cello frequencies as you outlined it in your post at 12:47 pm today is a bit off target. If the main speaker and subwoofer are well adjusted, then you will not hear a problem. Of course, that takes some thought and effort to get right, since as you say the cello operates right at the crossover frequencies one is most likely to use with a full range speaker + sub, 60 to 80Hz. Like everything else in life, there is no free lunch, which is why I have resisted subwoofers with my SLs even though I acknowledge the potential benefits. (I’m rethinking the issue as a result of this thread.) One point to consider is that subs are very re-sale-able, if you end up disappointed. There is a big market among home theater gurus. Finally, with a passive 6db filter, the chosen crossover point represents a frequency where the attenuation is -3db; it’s not flat down to the crossover point. Thus, another octave down is -9db, not -6db. Not so with most active crossovers.

Mijo, my question was specifically what are you using to provide digital domain filtering, that is, what brand and model? Thanks.

Here on Audiogon and elsewhere there are always a plethora of good high power solid state amplifiers for sale pre-owned at prices far below the cost of a new JC1. You’ll say the JC1 is best and I’ll say we’re only talking about the lowest 2 octaves of low bass. I’d look for a Threshold or Krell or any of many other good choices. In fact one might find a used JC1. I do also like the force cancellation idea.

Holmz, the first two of your last 3 bullet points would result in bypassing the main amplifier.

Mijostyn, Speaking for myself only, I am curious to learn what you use to effect steep crossover points in the digital domain. 

I didn't state it previously, but the crossover is a matter of trade-offs.  Mijo makes the case for a very steep hi-pass filter.  The rationale for that is you want as much as possible to reduce the burden on the main speakers to produce bass frequencies.  To do that, of course a steep HPF slope is in order.  The problem is that filters with very steep slopes are very likely to color the upper frequencies (because a lot of parts are needed to effect a steep slope, each of which is likely to reduce fidelity) and to introduce phase shift.  (I am not convinced phase shift is such an audible problem if kept moderate, especially with our dipolar radiators.)  One reason I am intrigued by the Pass XVR1 is that it can do a 24db/octave slope with Linkwitz-Riley character.  In L-R, the phase shift is no worse than that of a Butterworth 6db/octave filter. The XVR1 is a stand alone electronic crossover; in theory you would use it with a subwoofer that had no built-in crossover and which was driven by a separate outboard amplifier.  Does anyone know of a commercial subwoofer with built in x-over and amplification that also affords a L-R filter?  On the other hand, selecting a HPF with 6db/octave slope, whether done actively (using whatever HPS is built in to your chosen high end subwoofer) or passively, using a capacitor in series with the amplifier input is least likely to do harm to the main speaker's output.  Obviously, in a given case with lots of $$$ having been spent, a steep HPF might sound great.  That's why I am curious to know what Mijo uses for a digital filter ahead of his speakers.

drbond, for your amplifiers with a 22K ohm input impedance, about an 0.1uF capacitor would give you a HPF at 80Hz, 6db/octave, assuming a single-ended input.  My choice among capacitors I have heard would probably be a Russian SSG silver mica capacitor,

I only chose Velodyne as an example of a good company that’s been making and selling subwoofers for at least 30 years. I am aware that for very big bucks Magico and others also make subwoofers. I’ve never heard them and the question was how to incorporate a subwoofer with minimum effort not what’s the best subwoofer. I don’t live in your world of absolute certainty and perfection but you’re entitled to your opinion. However it would be nice if you acknowledged that you’re stating an opinion or in this case a set of various opinions.

Velodyne DD+, 15 or 18 inches.

ML probably make a good woofer too.

If you are going to draw conclusions by reading websites, you’re likely to do nothing. It is impossible to conceive that a high pass filter would have zero (measurable) effect on the upper frequencies, mostly in terms of phase shift, not distortion so much, unless you use a bad electronic crossover. The question is can you hear it and if you hear it do you like it? The reason for using 6db/octave (passive with just a capacitor or active using an electronic crossover) is to do as little damage as possible to frequencies above the crossover point, in terms of phase shift. If you have questions about the ML subwoofers, it would be best to either look for a good review on line or to call ML and ask. I don’t know how I got into the role of a person urging you to try a subwoofer. In the Velodyne website and elsewhere at sites selling Velodyne, there are usually good photos of the back of the subwoof showing connectivity. I looked at a few last night. For me it was easy to see there are inputs for the preamplifier output, outputs for high frequencies to go to a main amplifier, and of course the low frequencies go to the built in amplifier that drives the woofer. There are many other choices of connectivity also offered; one would not be using every single input and output in any single installation. If you buy a Velodyne, there will be a book explaining in great detail how to install and use. Never fear that.  Better yet, in your case I recommend you get a local dealer to do the install and explain it to you along the way.

Yes, and that has been written here above over the past several days.  If you buy a modern Velodyne sub, you would need nothing else.  It comes with a built in two way crossover and an amplifier dedicated to driving its subwoofer.  It also comes with a microphone and the necessary circuitry to set up the subwoofer for best flattest response.  I was wondering why you seemed to feel that introducing a subwoofer also meant you would have to give up your present preamplifier (to go digital for some reason) and even your main speakers.  Not so.

There are pros and cons to any decision. Yes, take your time to find your own set of goals and the best methods for achieving them. It’s more fun that way, besides.

drbond, This thread can go on and on with different ones of us giving you different advice. To avoid further confusion, I suggest you read up on the options by searching on line.  Terms you need to understand are "active crossover", "passive crossover", and something about how slope of the high and low pass filters comes into play. I don't agree with Holmz in some cases, but for me to debate Holmz here would only confuse you further. Suffice to say, as I said before, a properly integrated subwoofer will not give you the sensation that the cello is jumping from main speaker to subwoofer and back again.  On that score, Holmz and I agree. On the other hand, I am not a fan of digital filtering or digital shaping of the response.

Drbond, the filters built into most subwoofer electronics are active and analog. Unless explicitly stated, the filters in an outboard electronic crossover are analog.The only passive filter mentioned so far is the idea of using a capacitor in series with the main amplifier input to effect a simple 6db high pass filter. Everything else is active . If you want digital filtering I know nothing about what’s available, and I personally wouldn’t go in that direction.

"So, with the Velodyne Digital Drive subwoofer, the entire line goes through the subwoofer from the pre-amplifier? And the Velodyne has both a high pass and low pass filter, which the high pass filter line then goes to an output line into the amplifier, and the low pass filter signal is delivered to the subwoofer?"

So far as I can tell from reading on the internet, the answer is "yes".  The electronics in a DD+ Velodyne can do it all for you. But you can opt to drive the main speakers direct, using an in line capacitor to effect a passive high pass filter (or any other way you like to effect a high pass filter).  One or the other, not both.  I personally would NOT go digital for the high pass filter. There is just absolutely no need for it. Mijostyn would disagree.

drbond, There is no need to overthink this or to overspend, either.  There is absolutely no need to change your preamplifier, either.  The very simplest thing to do is to buy a high quality Velodyne or other reputable brand subwoofer.  These typically have built in to their electronics a pretty good electronic crossover which allows you to choose cut-off frequency for the high and low pass filters, and slope for high and low filters, as well as a level control so you can balance the two.  This is done electronically using a microphone and computer programming that is built into the subwoof.  It's quite amazing where the technology now stands. For you as a novice, this is the path I would recommend, if you are willing to spend the bucks on a very good subwoofer.  If on the other hand you want to use a passive high pass filter with a 6db slope and use only the low pass filter built into your new subwoof, I can calculate the value of capacitance you need to effect a crossover at a particular frequency of your choosing, if you supply the input impedance of your amplifier.  Since you have an Atma amplifier (if memory serves), I already know the impedance is likely to be 100K for SE mode and 200K ohms for balanced. Typically you would use a cut off below 100Hz.  At those frequencies (and lower is better), bass is non-directional. If you're crossing over below the primary tones of the instrument, then you would have absolutely no sense that the musical line is jumping from the main driver to the subwoof.  I wonder how Raul and Mijo feel about the need to use a stereo pair of subwoofs vs a single subwoof.  My bias would be to use a pair of modest size (e.g., 12 inches) or one of large size (15-18 inches).  The lower you crossover, the less would be the need for a stereo pair, by my own estimation.  You could crossover at 60Hz with our speakers or maybe 80Hz.

No problemo either way.

Mijo, my journey to not using a subwoofer with my full range ESLs runs through years of experimenting with subwoofers to augment other ESLs, like KLH9s, Quads, and Martin Logan CLSs, all of which really do need woofer supplementation. I built my huge Transmission Line cabinets that now supplement the Beveridge speakers back in the 70s on my nights off call when I was an intern.I’m certainly not as good a cabinet maker as you, but i do have past experience with subwoofers. That’s how I developed my distaste for electronic crossovers. (I’m sure modern ones are better.)

Are you addressing me?

Too late to edit my post above, but for completeness I thought I should add that an active electronic crossover is called "active" because it does add gain, to correct for the above mentioned insertion loss of any filter. The steeper the slope of the filter, the more is the insertion loss, and the more gain is added by a typical electronic crossover to compensate.  The two best and most expensive electronic crossovers I know about are the Pass XVR1 and the Bryston.  Pass can do 6, 12, 18, or 24db/octave slopes.  A passive filter, like just adding a capacitor in series with the signal going to the main amplifier to create a high pass filter, is pretty much limited to 6db/octave, also called a "Butterworth" filter. Steeper slopes CAN be executed passively, but insertion loss goes up accordingly.  You want a steep slope on the low pass filter going to the subwoof, because you don't want the subwoof contributing to midrange and treble, where it is likely to add distortion. In most cases, however, you can get by with a 6db/octave slope on the high pass filter, if your main speaker has full range capabilities.  Exactly where to set the crossover points is a matter of experimentation.

I truly did wonder why you thought Raul’s quote was humorous. Along the way, I could not resist the anatomical pun. However, I do know that autocorrect is a bitch.

My understanding of the classic REL set up is that the signal to the REL subwoofer is derived at the interface between the main amplifier and the main speaker. That full range signal is routed to the input of the REL subwoof amplifier which has a low pass filter before its input. The REL subwoof thus augments the main speaker at very low frequencies. This method does not result in reducing the bass frequency burden on the main amplifier or even the main speaker. Perhaps I’ve got it wrong. I suppose all this belongs on another forum, but drbond seems interested, and he is the originator of this thread. Otherwise, sorry for the digression.

drbond, The classic approach is to drive an electronic crossover from the preamplifier.  The electronic crossover has built in active high and low pass filters, usually with adjustments for cut-off frequencies and a choice of filter slope.  Sometimes an electronic crossover can also add gain to the signal.  Raul and I were talking about using an electronic crossover only for a low pass filter to the subwoofer.  The frequencies above low bass would go direct to the main amplifier, but at the input of the main amplifier, all you need to do is to add a single capacitor in series with the signal.  That capacitor in conjunction with the input impedance of the amplifier will act as a passive high pass filter with a gentle slope of 6db/octave.  For that, you would like to have a preamplifier with two pairs of output jacks, but it's not really mandatory; you can derive a second output between the main amp and the electronic crossover you use to provide the low pass filter to the subwoof.  I like this second option because the high pass signal does not have to go through a second circuit.  Trade-off is something called "insertion loss"; you lose a little gain in a passive filter, usually inconsequential.

Thanks for the info, Raul.  You remind me that long ago I did consider just adding a capacitor in series with the input of my main amplifier, to create a Butterworth type hi-pass filter.  That still seems the least harmful way to do it. I calculated a .02uF capacitor (or two per channel for my balanced amplifiers) would do the trick for my amps, with an 80Hz flex point.

Holmz, I am no fan of the REL approach, for the reason that if you drive the subwoofer off the main amplifier output, then neither the main amplifier nor the main speaker derives any benefit in terms of reducing the workload inherent to reproducing the lowest bass frequencies. Moreover, any distortion in the output of the main amplifier is presented to the REL subwoofer amplifier at its input. Unfortunately, I long ago concluded that you cannot obtain all the major benefits of subwoofing unless you're willing to add a high pass filter on the main amplifier.

Holmz, was that "humerus" or "humorous"?  And why did you find it humorous?

Raul, Which of the current Velodyne subwoofers do you like for a moderate size listening room and for crossing over below 100Hz? Would you use the built-in electronic crossover?  Pass makes or used to make an electronic crossover.  I have searched for one in the used market, because I have some faith in Nelson Pass, but I have never found one for sale.

drbond, Duke Lejeune is the man to whom you refer, who is a friend to Ralph Karsten.  His business is called "Audiokinesis".  If I were to add a subwoofer, that is where I would look. Duke is the salt of the earth, a great guy and very knowledgeable about what he is doing.  I am sure that Raul's recommendation for Velodyne would also be an excellent choice. But don't let Raul and Mijo make you feel inadequate. By all means, do add a subwoof, if you perceive that you need it, in your room, for your musical tastes.

The article you quote is about "woofers", not in particular about "subwoofers".  You say there are no negatives.  What about the required electronic crossover?  It needs to be totally transparent in order to do no harm to the signal at all audio frequencies. Is there really such a thing? You need to choose crossover points and slopes that suit the drivers in question, as well.  I also take the point about reproducing 40Hz, but the associated issue is what the drivers do at the crossover, i.e., the highest frequency the subwoofer (woofer in your cited article) is asked to reproduce.  These considerations, especially where one is using a subwoofer to augment the response of a main speaker that can already cover the bass spectrum adequately, should be in play when one decides to use a subwoofer with an otherwise full range speaker, and if the bass augmentation is poorly implemented, then the addition of a subwoofer will be a net negative.  I never met an electronic crossover that was totally transparent.

No. We don’t necessarily listen differently, and I often listen at high SPLs. The crux of the matter is we listen to different genres of music. For example, I’ve never heard of the group you just mentioned. It’s an interesting discussion if you can bring yourself to open your mind and quit the preaching.

As we previously concluded, my panels are 4 inches wider and both yours and mine are 96 inches in height (8 ft). Thus we calculate that mine have about 400 sq in more surface area. Even so, I am aware of the potential benefits of a subwoofer. I am also aware of the negatives.

Oh please!  You can preach even when you’re feeling good. There are pros and cons to the use of a subwoofer and I am aware of all of them. I wonder where you got the notion that ESLs per se as a class are nonlinear below 100Hz, and what do you mean by nonlinear? And what is the mechanism? No need to debate it here.

You got me to doing some research on the internet. This is on Wikipedia in the entry about the double bass, the instrument most commonly used in a jazz rhythm section: "The lowest note of a double bass is an E₁ (on standard four-string basses) at approximately 41 Hz or a C₁ (≈33 Hz), or sometimes B₀ (≈31 Hz), when five strings are used. This is within about an octave above the lowest frequency that the average human ear can perceive as a distinctive pitch." The largest Sound Lab ESLs can easily reproduce the lowest tones in a jazz trio or small ensemble, given an amplifier that is suited to the job.

The thing is that Mijostyn chose a not very challenging piece of music (Waltz for Debby is hardly equivalent to the 1812 Overture), played by a jazz trio to boot. You say that any ESL starts to fall off at 35-40Hz. Even accepting that lower limit (which I don’t because the lower limit will be different for diaphragm surface area, stator to panel spacing, etc), there is probably nothing below 40hz (>2 octaves below middle C) in Waltz for Debby. There’s no way to prove my point, since you guys cannot make it to my listening room, but I have no problem with Bill Evans Trio playing anything at realistic SPLs. A small factor to consider also is that Mijo and I previously guesstimated that my speakers have about 400 sq in more radiating surface area compared to his (because mine are wider by 4 inches). Whether this makes a critical difference to bass extension or not, I do not know, but it doesn’t hurt. I also think the curvature of the PX speakers is greater than that of Mike’s speakers, and that might also reduce phase cancellation of bass frequencies. Finally, I do not and did not claim that using a subwoofer would not be beneficial where the music is a really severe test of bass delivery. And yes, a subwoof also helps in a more minor way to reduce distortion in upper frequencies. (Doppler distortion in panel speakers is real in theory and controversial in its actual importance.) Finally, my speakers are easier to drive than any OEM Sound Lab speaker all of which use an RC network in a passive crossover in conjunction with the bass and treble audio step up transformers. Having said all that, rest assured I do think about adding subwoofers once in a while, but if I did I would cross over at maybe 60 to 80Hz and use a very fast subwoofer that can blend with an ESL, not a behemoth. Meantime, since 80-90% if my listening is jazz, I do not feel deprived of bass.

"If you play a Bill Evans record, say Waltz for Debby at the volume the music had that night at the Village Vanguard, without subwoofers the SoundLabs will crap  a brick regardless of what amp you are using to drive them."

With all respect, this is just wrong. Even though I am sick of "Waltz for Debby", though never sick of Bill Evans. And while I am sure there may be a rendition of WfD on one of the live VV performance albums (I’d have to check), he also recorded it in at least one studio session. Here’s where I debate whether to bring up the modification I made to the SL crossover that improved both efficiency and the impedance curve to suit our OTL amplifiers. The 845PX can reproduce the lowest frequencies of the bass player (Paul Motian?) on WfD at very satisfying SPLs. What it cannot do is blast you out of your seat on a hard rock recording, which I am sure Mijo’s subwoofers CAN do. And my Atma OTLs are more like MA1s than MA2s in terms of power output. (They are neither, use type 7241 triodes as output tubes on MA2 chassis’ using MA2 power transformers.)

Or you can come to my house and hear great bass response from a pair of 845PXs with no subwoofers. ESLs don’t “hate” bass. They are hampered by diaphragm to stator spacing, bias voltage, panel size, and phase cancellation. And by amplifiers.

Mijo wrote, "A given cartridge is going to require an arm of a given effective mass." My only point was and is that the cartridge and the mounting hardware ARE part of the effective mass of a functioning tonearm, their mass must be included if you use the equation for resonant frequency.  An atypically heavy cartridge, like some of the Benz cartridges and others, can add ~10g and more to effective mass, turn the 17g Schroeder into a 27g effective mass, because of course the mass of the cartridge is directly on top of the cantilever/stylus. (That's assuming that Schroeder makes no allowance for the cartridge weight when they state the EM of the CB tonearm at 17g.)

Does the CB manual state whether the value of 17g is inclusive of the weight/mass of a "typical" cartridge and mounting hardware?  If not, then add the weight of the cartridge plus hardware to the figure of 17g.  I enjoy the math and science of this stuff, but in all honesty, on a personal level, just make it work and enjoy yourself.  I don't know where you were going with your question about the brass, but for sure the material used for the CW makes no difference to SQ.  The density of the metal might come into play where you are concerned about the size of the CW, in order so it fits as close as possible to the pivot.  In that case, density is the parameter to go by, but at the same time, I say don't bother.

Effective mass of the tonearm will be related to the mass of the CW X (distance from center of mass of CW to pivot)-squared. So if you want to minimize EM then you’re nbest off with a heavier CW placed closer to the pivot.

You know you need a heavier CW if your present CW is insufficient in weight to achieve the desired VTF with your particular cartridge. If you’re at the end of rear travel of the CW in order to achieve VTF, then too you might consider a heavier CW so you can get it closer to the pivot and still achieve VTFlike Raul said.

Helix is one of the best I’ve ever heard.

Mike, I assume Skos is referring to and thinking of buying the CS Port phono stage, not the TT.  But I could be wrong.

As Mijostyn knows, I too use Sound Lab speakers, the 845PXs. The "backplate", in Sound Lab parlance, is where the bass and treble audio step up transformers and the passive crossover network that divides the frequencies that drive them, are housed. In my speakers, the components of the backplate are highly modified to save amplifier power and to provide for a high input impedance favorable to my Atma-sphere amplifiers. Funnily enough, the Atma-sphere amplifiers in this system are driven by Raul’s 3160 Phonolinepreamp, most of the time, also by my Atma-sphere MP1, and sometimes by my BMC MCCI ULN SE. (The aforementioned Steelhead drives a Beveridge 2SW-based system in my basement.)

By the way, I think Mike Lavigne owns the CS Port phono.

Drbond, I’d have to hear it myself to get a feel for what you’re describing. To begin with, for me bloom and the sense of ambiance are two different sensations. It makes sense to me that studio recordings where there is no audience and the recording engineer has greatest control really ought to give the listener the sense that musicians are in the room, or at least one is more likely to get that sensation under such circumstances. Club or live concert recordings ought to bring us to the venue, because the recording usually contains ambient cues. If my gear can achieve both illusions depending on the source material, I’m usually happy.

 Not meaning to be combative, but referring to the capacity of a fine tube phono stage to “bloom” or to make the listener feel the musicians are in the room as “distortion “ seems a bit unfair, not to say unmeasured and therefore maybe not distortion. For one thing, creating those two sensations can have much to do with special qualities of individual recordings and with room acoustics. For another, I like those sensations. Ironically, Raul’s SS phonolinepreamp can do both. It’s superb in my estimation.

The Manley Steelhead can be vastly upgraded by replacing the output coupling capacitors. I am certainly not about to claim that doing so would result in it sounding as good as the CH1, but it is a worthwhile alteration.

Since you are the sole repository of "common sense", in your opinion, and since your opinions are all over this thread, why would you say there is no common sense here?

I shouldn't bother to respond, but I cannot resist pointing out that I said nothing, zero, in support of or in criticism of the Hyperion amplifiers, because I did admit from the beginning that I had never heard a pair, much less even seen a pair.  I didn't even know whether they were solid state or tube based until now.  I have heard a Ypsilon phono stage in my neighbor's system with which I was very familiar, and it was stellar in that context.  Drawbacks are that it provides only 39db of phono gain and so far as I know has only one pair of inputs.

I did compare the JC1s to my Atma-sphere amplifiers because I briefly owed a pair of JC1s and have always owned the Atma-sphere amps, it seems.  And I compared them on my home system. My question to Mijostyn about the context in which he made a comparison of the JC1 to the Hyperion is a perfectly valid one, and it's a question of the kind you often ask as well, when someone offers an opinion on a cartridge.  In fact, for anyone to say "I like A better than B" without giving some context is worthless. Mijostyn was kind enough to respond to the question; your judgement of the quality of my question (argumentative) was uncalled for. I wasn't addressing you.

Fremer is listening without measuring. Atkinson is measuring without critical listening. Thus they offer two entirely different perspectives. The reader needs to make up his own mind based on the total information.

This sidebar has nothing to do with phono stages.

Specifically, I have found that I favor OTL tube amplifiers to drive full-range ESL speakers.  This category does not include conventional transformer coupled tube amplifiers.  Why add another coupling transformer where it is not needed? A further qualification is that I made my original judgements based on ESLs that were available in the 70s and 80s, to include KLH9s and Quad 57s, and a few others.  Later on in history, several speaker makers, SL included, made a decision to design crossover networks or input stages for their ESLs that made them a more favorable load for solid state amplifiers.  I have not liked such speakers as much as I liked the early high impedance ESLs, whether driven by tubes or by SS amplification.  For another example, the very first M-L ESL, the CLS, with a 16 ohm impedance, was made in heaven for the Futterman amplifiers I then owned.  I enjoyed them for several years. Then M-L messed with the input stage to lower impedance for SS amplifiers, and the resulting CLS IIs lost all the glory of the original, regardless of how you drove it. I am very happy having removed the crossover parts from my SL speakers that wasted amplifier power across a resistor and that artificially lowered input Z to favor SS amplifiers.  I am quite happy with what I have now in my PX845s, and I commend Dr West for modifying his speaker line in accordance with solving the problem they had.  I plead guilty to all of the above.  Now, will you admit that the very thought of a vacuum tube makes you have conniptions?  The JC1s plain and simple do not hold a candle to the Atma-sphere amplifiers I own for driving my current version of the 845PXs; if they were better sounding, I would have kept them.  Believe it or don't.