Benefit of stylus shapes, measured?

[Heinrich]

My question I have asked many times already: Are there direct, trustworthy measurements on the advantage of elliptical or even more complex stylus shapes available on the internet? I absolutely cannot find any. It almost seems as if a direct comparison is strictly avoided. Even AI cannot find any.

There are hints about measurements at LowBeats because of the VM series of Audio Technica. The VM95C could be compared with the other models specified by stylus shape — same generator, certainly different cantilever, but still! And precisely this comparison is missing, even though LowBeats developed a measurement procedure that would allow for it.

Honestly, I am disappointed that this financially relevant topic is only discussed emotionally and subjectively in the realm of ‘magical thinking.’ The usual plausibility arguments are nonsense anyway, because the elasticity of vinyl is not taken into account (stylus/vinyl resonance around 15 kHz…40 kHz).

The behavior of the stylus in the groove is mathematically extremely complex even when elasticity is not considered. Then add the fact that the cutting stylus does not run in a way that produces a nice sine wave. The usual little diagrams used to “explain” elliptical advantages almost insult me. Shibata was developed for the CD-4 system (an early, completely unsuccessful quadraphonic format), and again: real measurements are missing. Isn’t that unbearable?

Silence speaks for itself.

 

[Balle Clorin]

See the cartridge library thread …

 

[Curupira]

The library thread here shows the differences, mainly that conical rolls off heavily above 8khz and that microline/shibata doesn't and has lower distortion numbers.

You can also watch some IGD comparison videos on YouTube. They aren't real measurements per say, but the difference is so clear from conical to elyptical and elyptical to linear that it used to puzzle me on how audiophools would rave about how "better" the vinyl media was, and still not know about IGD or hear it on entry solutions.

 

[Heinrich]

See the cartridge library thread …

I couldn't find measurements that were conclusive in one direction. The distortions seen are really very high through the board. Denon's DL103, famously sporting a spherical tip isn't worse than any other.

The library thread here shows the differences, mainly that conical rolls off heavily above 8khz and that microline/shibata doesn't and has lower distortion numbers.

Again, can't find conclusive data. Would you mind to give an example?

 

[Thomas_A]

I couldn't find measurements that were conclusive in one direction. The distortions seen are really very high through the board. Denon's DL103, famously sporting a spherical tip isn't worse than any other.


Again, can't find conclusive data. Would you mind to give an example?

Look at distortion at 5 kHz. New MR/ML are usually between -40 to -30 dB. The DL103 is not.

 

[Heinrich]

Look at distortion at 5 kHz. New MR/ML are usually between -40 to -30 dB. The DL103 is not.

Would you mind to show me two examples of new MR/ML - I can't find two.

 

[Thomas_A]

Would you mind to show me two examples of new MR/ML - I can't find two.

Cf. H2, ATVM95C, E & 2 x ML

Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

Hi Jimi Thanks and good point! I’m just outside London so posting to a uk tester is preferred. Here’s my Technics operation: https://www.decknics.co.uk/ A local tester who can pop over to the workshop is also welcome! Address is listed on the website. Regarding the NOS V15 you’re not going...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

There is no such problem in the previously performed measurement of the Ortofon MC 5000. In my opinion, the problem concerns only the phono cartridge. I took a closer look at the cantilever in this specimen, using a magnifying glass, I can see that the cantilever is not glued perfectly straight...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

This was our reference in the 1970s in a recording studio. We had an historic archive of concert performances cut to disc before tape. Our reference arms were the SAE 3000? large diameter disc curved on a large mass large diameter 16"? mains synced platter. At home at the time, I had a V15-IV on...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

Audio-Technica AT-VM95ML Part 2: high-mass tonearm and DIN 45 543 crosstalk measurements Click to increase size Notes Aside from the expected low frequency resonance stability the results pretty much match my prior Denon ones What is interesting is that my DIN 45 543 test record shows better...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Heinrich]

Cf. H2, ATVM95C, E & 2 x ML

Thanks for the links, it helps a lot. The AT VM95E is astoundingly good, while the ML edition is exceptional. The C-type loses by 10dB which is a lot indeed.
But the comparison of Shure V15 types isn't as conclusive. MR versus Elliptical shows marginal gains. The Denon DL103 won't compete anyway. But which MC does?

I argue that with less expensive versions the cantilever is proportionally simple built. The diamond is most probably bonded, lowering the resonance frequency tip versus vinyl (15kHz ~ 40kHz depending on type).

Do we have anything with a clear 'spot on' result ... as if it were of elevated interest to generate fundamental confirmation. Something external with appropriate focus under controlled conditions? People are spending tons of money - especially when considering the limited life span of the stylus, on vague promise and word of mouth.

 

[Michael Koerner]

This https://korfaudio.com/blog105 is probably also of interest in this context. They measure Distortion of various Stylus types over the entire record and you can clearly see differences of various styli.

 

[Bland_username42069]

Thanks for the links, it helps a lot. The AT VM95E is astoundingly good, while the ML edition is exceptional. The C-type loses by 10dB which is a lot indeed.
But the comparison of Shure V15 types isn't as conclusive. MR versus Elliptical shows marginal gains. The Denon DL103 won't compete anyway. But which MC does?

I argue that with less expensive versions the cantilever is proportionally simple built. The diamond is most probably bonded, lowering the resonance frequency tip versus vinyl (15kHz ~ 40kHz depending on type).

Do we have anything with a clear 'spot on' result ... as if it were of elevated interest to generate fundamental confirmation. Something external with appropriate focus under controlled conditions? People are spending tons of money - especially when considering the limited life span of the stylus, on vague promise and word of mouth.

People are being brutally exploited into paying ridiculous sums of money for products that don’t deliver on the poetry.

 

[JP]

This https://korfaudio.com/blog105 is probably also of interest in this context. They measure Distortion of various Stylus types over the entire record and you can clearly see differences of various styli.

With caution - he tends to design experiments and showcase data that only reinforce his narrative. The confounders between the two styli tested are legion.

because the elasticity of vinyl is not taken into account

Also with caution. If you read the old papers, a good deal of the observed phenomena were explained by the vinyl elasticity models, but not all of them. Many a footnote on things that just did not fit. Years ago LD (LuckyDog) who participated on many forums used a mechanical transmission line model for the stylus/cantilever assembly that was quite compelling in that regard. At any rate, the elasticity of vinyl in the dynamic environment of playback isn't foregone.

The behavior of the stylus in the groove is mathematically extremely complex even when elasticity is not considered. Then add the fact that the cutting stylus does not run in a way that produces a nice sine wave. The usual little diagrams used to “explain” elliptical advantages almost insult me. Shibata was developed for the CD-4 system (an early, completely unsuccessful quadraphonic format), and again: real measurements are missing. Isn’t that unbearable?

Not really. The basic "ball tracing a wave diagrams" are a clean way to conceptualize and explain the core of the issue. Test signals are limited and their translation to program material problematic due to the factors that result in the geometry of the groove. It's not at all a difficult concept to grasp and there are plenty of measurements out there, whether it be distortion trends as @Thomas_A pointed out to you, or response of inner vs outer grooves of styli with differing minor radii.

Do we have anything with a clear 'spot on' result ... as if it were of elevated interest to generate fundamental confirmation. Something external with appropriate focus under controlled conditions? People are spending tons of money - especially when considering the limited life span of the stylus, on vague promise and word of mouth.

What is a clear "spot on" result to you? I love a good game of murder mystery and all, but...

"People are spending tons of money" is a value argument, not a technical argument. Are you concerned that an ML may not deliver a real benefit over an inferior cut, or are you concerned about the prices being charged? The latter don't tend to be narrowly focused on advanced styli.

 

[Heinrich]

What is a clear "spot on" result to you? I love a good game of murder mystery and all, but...

I get your valid points, thanks. The “ball tracking a wave” concept makes sense as long as the groove walls are assumed to be rigid — which they aren’t. The cutting process isn’t perfectly linear either; the stylus moves in a rotational path rather than a straight line, though that’s probably a minor effect.

Just for completeness: there were once attempts to compensate for these distortions using a feedforward approach, such as RCA’s Dynagroove. From what I’ve read, this only worked for spherical styli, not for elliptical ones — so I wonder: if the distortions of E types are unpredictable, how can anyone define the advantage?

What I’ve learned so far: excellent cartridges tend to have very sharp stylus profiles. All top-tier cartridges use some kind of specialized stylus shape. However, not all “sharp” designs perform equally well.

My conclusion: excellent cartridges always feature MR/ML (MicroRidge/MicroLine) or similar profiles, but not all cartridges with MR/ML tips are excellent.

From a practical customer perspective, I still have to pay for the MR/ML “mystery” regardless. They might oversell the benefit, but what choice do I have?

What’s still unclear:

• Why is the cost of MR/ML types so much higher? If it’s just for the stylus, that feels like a rip-off.
• Why do quite many MR/ML cartridges perform only mediocre at best?
• Shure claimed the advantage of elliptical over conical wasn’t that huge (a few percent) — yet the measured differences among some cartridges suggest otherwise.
• Are there MC pickups that perform as well as the AT VM95ML (the “E” type isn’t bad either) or the Shure V15/MR?
• Why has the topic of stylus shape remained obscure for decades? No direct proof, no controlled tests where only the shape changes under identical conditions.

And not the least: who guarantees that the sharper stylus is mounted properly — into the cantilever, into the cartridge body, and aligned on the platter? What about record warp?

 

[GuidoK]

They aren't real measurements per say, but the difference is so clear from conical to elyptical and elyptical to linear that it used to puzzle me on how audiophools would rave about how "better" the vinyl media was, and still not know about IGD or hear it on entry solutions.

Most audiophools apparently don't listen. That said, I think listening tests here are also underpresented. Measurements don't tell the complete story as tracking of one type of signal on one spot on a record is totally different than tracking a different kind of signal on a different spot on the record, or for that matter on the same spot.

The best listeningtest regarding this is still made by @JP who once made a set of files of the complete AT-VM95 range with the tacet fricatives test track (an IGD test track) which gives a very nice overview of all the same cartridge bodies, same cantilever and just different stylus tips. So this gives a very objective difference regarding the stylus tip. But he posted (this was in a rather messy AK topic) also the same samples of a lot of other (very exotic to grail type) cartridges, but the results were more or less the same where the stylusshape defined the quality of tracking and that the cantilever hardly had any influence.
AT-VM95C (bonded conical) on the tacet igd test track:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

AT-VM95e (bonded elliptical) on the tacet igd test track:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

AT-VM95en (nude elliptical (round shank) on the tacet igd test track:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

AT-VM95sh (nude shibata) on the tacet igd test track:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

AT-VM95ml (nude MicroLine) on the tacet igd test track:

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Of course these are test tracks to emphasize differences, however the signal on the track isn't that loud, you can hear the intro which is normal voice and used for all the test tracks on that record.
IGD on records is of course signal dependant (loudness and frequency) and mainly a problem on 33rpm inner grooves, but it still is fairly common.
One of my favorite examples is Billy Jean on Michael Jackson's Thriller. Arguably his biggest hit on the best selling record of all time (if I have to believe the internet and various music enciclopedia), so a song/record that is fairly likely to be played by someone that has a turntable. (note this is a dutch pressing, pressed by the CBS factory (quite large back then, 50 million/year) which is now recordindustry; other pressings can give other results)
I don't have the at-vm95 series of cartridges, but this is with an AT-440mla (so nude Microline) and AT-95e (bonded elliptical) and it shows the same kind of differences as the Tacet IGD test track (but now on a normal very common record):
AT-95e:

https://audio.home.xs4all.nl/zooi/draaitafels/ABcomparison/billyjean/billy%20jean%20at95e%20DS.flac

AT-440mla:

https://audio.home.xs4all.nl/zooi/draaitafels/ABcomparison/billyjean/billy%20jean%20at440mla%20DS.flac

Both stylii are pretty much brand new (<20 hours)

I don't think this example is 'magical thinking' and to me a no brainer to choose for a more advanced stylus (preferably MicroLine) nowadays, especially as you can have an AT-VM95ML for ~€150 nowadays. And an ML stylus is supposedly to have more playing hours where the sound deteriorates less over those playing hours than other stylii. However stuff like that is very difficult and intensive to actually measure and catalog.

 

[Heinrich]

I don't think this example is 'magical thinking' ...

Thanks also to @JP for the examples, I knew them, great stuff. But!

You just cannot compare a bonded stylus slapped onto a cheap rod to a naked oriented diamond press-fitted to an expensive cantilever, and then account all the goods to the shape alone.

Most probably the vinyl versus tip resonance of the C type is located quite low, 15kHz maybe. Resonance means, the vinyl deforms, hence no chance to follow the track.

 

[antcollinet]

People are spending tons of money - especially when considering the limited life span of the stylus, on vague promise and word of mouth.

Bear in mind also.

Figures from AT state that the lifetime of the micro line stylus is double that of the conical, and three times that of the elliptical (figures for the VM95 xx). This effectivly halves the cost of the micro line stylus compared with the conical.

So the comparison would be (current amazon prices)

Conical.
£19 cf £64 (128/2)

Eliptical
£26 cf £42.5 (128/3)


The value proposition changes somewhat both based on performance and, especially, when you consider reduced wear on your valuable vinyl collection.

 

[GuidoK]

Thanks also to @JP for the examples, I knew them, great stuff. But!

You just cannot compare a bonded stylus slapped onto a cheap rod to a naked oriented diamond press-fitted to an expensive cantilever, and then account all the goods to the shape alone.

The cantilevers are the same for the at-vm95 series. There is no 'expensive cantilever', it's a bog standard straight aluminium one.
The difference in result in the tacet igd test track is to my ears very much the same as what I hear on my MJ track. If needed, I have the tacet igd tracks also for those cartridges.

What makes it more interesting is this topic with tests from @JP, where 2 totally different cartridges (different in every way, from inner workings to price to materials etc) were compared and where no one could tell the difference with normal tracks in the blind ABX tests.....

Cartridge Preference Comparison

Mounted a new cartridge up today, and while giving it a listen I thought it sounded very similar to one I listened to a few weeks ago, so I did some comparisons... and indeed it does! Thought it would be fun to see what others thought. Here are four different samples in a simple A/B format...

audiokarma.org

Until he posted a test with an inner track. Then it became very obvious. But again, the differences were akin to what you can hear on the tacet test track.
So from that I can only conclude that the main difference in igd playback quality is the stylus tip. The rest is of far lesser importance. I think when it comes to IGD, VTF might even be more important than expensive cantilevers.
What I'd like to see is a nicely controlled ABX test between the AT-VM740xML and AT-VM745xML in the style that @JP did on AK....and see if anyone actually statistically can hear a difference (blind). Because I have my doubts.

 

[GuidoK]

What’s still unclear:

• Why is the cost of MR/ML types so much higher? If it’s just for the stylus, that feels like a rip-off.

Much higher cost compared to what? AT sells a ML cartridge for €150. That's the same price as Nagaoka sells their MP-110 with bonded elliptical (and on bog standard straight alu cantilever etc etc).
It's also the same price as the Ortofon 2m bleu, a nude elliptical with all other parameters similar.
MR/ML is mainly expensive at brands other than AT. That mainly says something about those other brands and not ML specifically.
What to you feels like a rip-off I can't judge. For me, those other brands feel like a rip-off. The stylus tip is once you come to the more complex shapes a very difficult thing to make I think. So yes obviously ML is more expensive than bonded elliptical, but the biggest difference is not made by the stylus tip, but by the overhead or production efficiency (or both) between the various manufacturers.

• Why do quite many MR/ML cartridges perform only mediocre at best?

Which ones do you think perform only mediocre, and why?

• Shure claimed the advantage of elliptical over conical wasn’t that huge (a few percent) — yet the measured differences among some cartridges suggest otherwise.

Measured as in how?

• Are there MC pickups that perform as well as the AT VM95ML (the “E” type isn’t bad either) or the Shure V15/MR?

MC cartridges with microline stylii? They start at around €500 I believe.

• Why has the topic of stylus shape remained obscure for decades? No direct proof, no controlled tests where only the shape changes under identical conditions.

Was it obscure for decades? It's not less obscure now than it was 50 years ago if you look at it the same way. Manufacturers still don't do unbiased tests and make unbiased comparisons. Also tests comparisons by magazines are often not that controlled or unbiased (often sponsor money involved). That also hasn't changed; it's now (sponsored) websites what do what magazines used to do.
The biggest change is the internet. It allows private people that have no commercial agenda to communicate globally in a direct way as a group to share information in a variety of formats (sound, image written word etc). Accumulation of knowledge (both individual knowledge as group knowledge) is totally different (and for the better if you ask me).

 

[DSJR]

I just wish Shure had continued making select styli for their most popular cartridges, or got Jico to make exact copies rather than 'similar/in the style of' versions. Apparently, in the entire production run, at least from the M44 series on, there were only around five bodies used with various different mounts attached to them.

 

[Mr. Swordfish]

Interesting thread. Don't have much to contribute, other than to note that back when I was a radio engineer the industry standard was a Stanton 500 series with a spherical tip stylus. Eliptical and other fancy shapes do not play well with back queueing.

Along with the Technics SP-15 turntable, it was just what everybody used. 421 or RE20 for announce mics, Sentry 100As for monitors. Life was much simpler back then.

 

[Heinrich]

Much higher cost compared to what? AT sells a ML cartridge for €150.

Compared to the spherical. Accuracy in assembly aside, do you think polishing the stylus to ML would cost 100 bucks each?

In regard to the fricatives test, if my recollection doesn‘t trick me, I wasn’t impressed by either of the specimen. I‘ll listen again, and may decide for the ML with real money

What do we hear, actually—is it subharmonics or harmonic distortion? I‘ve got a testrecord that has bandlimited noise at 10kHz. I hear the problem clearly, but it must be below the 10k (tested w/ cutting the bandwidth by equalizer). If that is real, the distortion is subharmonic, and not originated in the ‚ball failing to follow the wave‘. The stylus is losing track in leaving the groove, not just misreading it. And that would not be (directly) related to stylus shape, me assumes.

add on ‚directly‘: the wider stylus undergoes harder accelerations when it gets pinched (if that is a word), which it might not follow