To the general readership of this thread:
Test #1: is anyone aware of a controlled listening test between a good elliptical and a microline/line-contact stylus on the same cartridge body, that showed listeners enjoyed a much better perceived level of detail and high frequency response with the latter?
Test #2: is anyone aware of a controlled listening test between a decent audiophile cartridge from the 80s vs modern microline/line-contact stylus, at a comparable price point adjusted for inflation?
These would be really interesting topics for discussion in this thread, and fits perfectly with OP Bob's desire to see technical discussion about variables that improve or degrade vinyl playback.
As context for Test #1, I see on the cartridge measurements thread that elliptical carts seem to routinely achieve responses out to 20 kHz with no rolling off in the top octaves, eg AT OC9 EN vs OC9 ML. So I see no basis for a claim that changing from elliptical to microline will immediately result in much better details and HF response.
As context for Test #2, surely in vinyl's heyday the production volumes were massive, and the opportunity was there for lower production costs via economies of scale. As far as I can tell from ASR discussions, the technologies were absolutely there in the 80s. Were they making very decent cartridges at good value in the 80s that would sound great to today's vinyl audiophile? I can't see why not.
cheers
The "modern" microline/line-contact styli, are exactly what was in use for high end cartridges in the 1980's - they are made by a very limited number of manufacturers (eg: Namiki) and to this day are still made by the same manufacturers who sell the cut diamonds to the various stylus and cartridge makers.
Some of the rare cuts (eg: FritzGeiger) might need a bit more research to work out who is making them now.
Shibata profile was developed by RCA & JVC in the early 70's.... and is still in use unchanged today.
A listening test would only be relevant if you could remove other extraneous variables, so you could test the subjective impact of the one variable you are interested in.
You could for example compare an original V15VMR to a V15V-SAS-B - but although the cartridge body is the same, the cantilever and its suspension/mounting mechanism are quite different, whereas the stylus tip cut profile is well nigh identical (and most likely based on the same original patents, and manufactured by the same manufacturer!)
So your comparison would not be so much the stylus as the cantilever, suspension etc...
A top flight 0.2mil eliptical has the same performance as a microline - the performance limitations are driven by the horizontal width of the contact patch - and they achieve pretty much the same patch width.
However, having said that - the aereal pressure applied by the eliptical is much higher, as its contact patch is basically a tiny circle... with all the pressure applied to the vinyl in that constrained area, whereas a line contact will distribute the pressure over a substantially larger surface area.
This leads to two major differences:
1) The reduced pressure leads to reduced wear and tear both on the stylus and the vinyl - lifetime of both is increased substantially
2) because it "reads" the vinyl both above and below the conical/eliptical read location, older records that have reduced performance due to wear, can sometimes be "read" as well as "new" - as you are now reading a vertical line rather than a circular spot - you read above and below the contact wear zone from the conical/eliptical styli.
As an important aside, elipticals and conicals are not so sensitive to precise vertical angles of mounting - they read a spot... so it doesn't matter so much!
Line contact designs read a Line - and for best results, that line needs to be as close to vertical as possible.... which makes these designs quite sensitive to vertical angle variation!
There are excellent cartridges from the 1980's and even 1970's which are on a par with the best made today. Getting replacement styli for them on the other hand is increasingly difficult.
Manufacturers like Jico with their SAS styli, provide an alternative path... one that turns the vintage cartridge into a hybrid design with Jico SAS technology applied. The SAS styli I have measured, did not perform up to the standards of the 1980's styli they were replacing - but they are very good nevertheless.
Sadly no one is making Beryllium cantilevers (due to OH&S issues with the material), and no manufacturers are making boron hollow tube cantilevers.... so the key technologies to making ultra low effective mass cantilevers are (at least for the time being) defunct.
Some people have taken to retipping and re-suspending original 1980's cantilevers - but results can be highly variable, and dependent on the skills of the individual doing the work... a very delicate craftsman task...