Audio-Technica AT95E vs Shure M91ED

EvolJ

New Member
To start with my setup is a Marantz 2230B receiver, a Pioneer PL-570 TT and Infinity SL 40 speakers. My old TT was a Pioneer PL-10. The PL-10 has a Shure M91ED cart installed. When I got the PL-570 it came with an unknown model AT cart. I went ahead and bought a new AT95E and replaced the unknown AT. I love the TT but the sound coming out of it was a little flat from what I was used to with the PL-10. So I switched the headshell from the PL-570 to the PL-10 and played it and I got the same sort of sound. Then I put the headshell with the Shure cart from the PL-10 onto the 570 and wham! There was so much more detail and a brighter sound than the AT cart. I could feel the punch in the music again. By the way the unknown AT cart that came with the TT had the same sort of flat sound. Which is why I bought the AT95E in the first place.

I am still learning about turntables and the pieces of stereo equipment. So can someone please explain to me what the difference is between these two carts?

Thanks

J
 
I have both and the 95 can be upgraded. The 91ED is one of my all time favorites due to being raised on it-so I know it well and also can be upgraded. I would keep um both. Enjoy!
 
From my experience, AT 95E sounds way too bright, squeaky with excessively high tones, where on the other hand Shure M75 (and 91) both sound much warmer, more natural. The kind of sound you would expect to hear from a turntable IMO. This is entirely personal experience, obviously... There are folks out there who praise & adore AT 95E, but I'm not one of them.

You should also consider output voltages, which is around 3.5mV on AT 95E and (if I'm not mistaking) 5.0mV on Shure M75/91. Meaning that Shure cart is going to sound "punchy", it will be louder & overall better sounding. Not to mention the channel separation... Not sure what the 91ED is rated for, but from my experience the AT-95E has a lousy stereo image. I DO know however that my M75 ED/Type2 has amazing stereo image, sometimes you can literally hear two different audio sources, coming from each speaker. As in vocals from the left one for example, and musical instruments from the right one. Which is something I could never do with AT 95E, they always mixed together. This especially shows when you import, feed the signal into Audacity & analyze the waveform, signal amplitude. I can upload a pic if you're interested & show it to you.
 
. . . I am still learning about turntables and the pieces of stereo equipment. So can someone please explain to me what the difference is between these two carts?
One possible cause of difference could be how well each cartridge is suited to the total capacitance of your turntable's wiring plus the phono input of your receiver. The AT95E, and it seems to be like this for all AT cartridges I have looked up, has a recommended load capacitance of 100-200 pF while for the M91ED it is 400-500 pF.
 
I have never heard a AT that I liked. But, that's just me. I currently have a M95ED and a M75ED. Used to have a M91Ed that I liked, too.
 
From my experience, AT 95E sounds way too bright, squeaky with excessively high tones, where on the other hand Shure M75 (and 91) both sound much warmer, more natural. The kind of sound you would expect to hear from a turntable IMO. This is entirely personal experience, obviously... There are folks out there who praise & adore AT 95E, but I'm not one of them.
The AT cart needs to see input capacitance of about 100-200pf to not sound shrill. The M91 does best at 400-500pf. ATs sound nice when run at proper capacitance, but it can be challenging to get there. The higher capacitance that works with Shures is easier for people to achieve, and many turntables and phono preamps are already in this range without modification.
 
The AT cart needs to see input capacitance of about 100-200pf to not sound shrill. The M91 does best at 400-500pf. ATs sound nice when run at proper capacitance, but it can be challenging to get there. The higher capacitance that works with Shures is easier for people to achieve, and many turntables and phono preamps are already in this range without modification.
Well, mine came pre-mounted with Audio Technica AT-LP120... Apparently & for some reason they thought 95E would make a better choice over the previous ATP-3 which was the original choice.

Therefore, either someone forgot to do the math OR there's something else to it, related to either personal taste or the kind of music you're playing. Because some folks seem to love AT-95E on LP120 *shrug*

I have to say though, AT 3600 sounds amazing. I realize this is getting us off-topic, but the sound output from 3600 is the kind of quality I expected from AT-95E. Kinda ironic when you think about it... ;)
 
One possibility that I have not yet seen discussed is a compliance mismatch with the arm with respect to the AT95E. The AT is a medium compliance cart while the Shure is a high compliance.

Like Trekkie, I've always felt that the stock AT95E is rather unsatisfying regardless of arm. Upgrading to an HE (no longer avail) or VL (currently avail) stylus makes an enormous difference in sound quality.
 
The one advantage to the AT is that AT still makes replacement styli for it. With the Shure, you've got to pick and choose between either cheap styli of dubious origin or expensive styli that cost as more than twice the price of the AT.
Another thing about the aftermarket styli is that they change the way the M91 sounds in ways you might not like. I have an M91 and an M95. The M91 has a cheap EVG replacement stylus that retains the Shure's sonic character but leaves something to be desired when it comes to handling sibilants. The M95 has a JICO HE stylus in it (genuine JICO in a JICO box, no speculation about the supplier) and while it tracks very well the cartridge is brighter sounding in my system than an AT VM540ML. With the same capacitance loading, in the same turntable, with the same electronics.
A caveat here--while I've used many AT and Shure carts, I've never used or heard an AT95. But according my ears at least, every aftermarket stylus I've used with Shure carts with the exception of the very expensive SAS types have made the Shures sound brighter than they sound with OE styli.
Not trying to influence the OP one way or another, just my two cents.
 
The one advantage to the AT is that AT still makes replacement styli for it. With the Shure, you've got to pick and choose between either cheap styli of dubious origin or expensive styli that cost as more than twice the price of the AT.
Another thing about the aftermarket styli is that they change the way the M91 sounds in ways you might not like. I have an M91 and an M95. The M91 has a cheap EVG replacement stylus that retains the Shure's sonic character but leaves something to be desired when it comes to handling sibilants. The M95 has a JICO HE stylus in it (genuine JICO in a JICO box, no speculation about the supplier) and while it tracks very well the cartridge is brighter sounding in my system than an AT VM540ML. With the same capacitance loading, in the same turntable, with the same electronics.
A caveat here--while I've used many AT and Shure carts, I've never used or heard an AT95. But according my ears at least, every aftermarket stylus I've used with Shure carts with the exception of the very expensive SAS types have made the Shures sound brighter than they sound with OE styli.
Not trying to influence the OP one way or another, just my two cents.
I remember buying N 75ED/T2 stylus for my M75B cart a while ago, and they (Thakker.eu) had two options for "ED" stylus. One was Swiss-made (EVG?) and the other one simply said "Thakker Japan", which ended up being a genuine Jico. It even says so on the box... So it's not really that difficult to find Jico styli for these older Shures, you just have to look in right direction :)

On the other hand, my other, "Mexican" Shure M94 with dark-blue aftermarket stylus didn't have a brand (or technical specs), which leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Some folks here at AK suggested that it COULD be Jico, because of the black dot on cantilever, but other than taking a closer look under the microscope, there's no way to tell the exact specs & build quality.
 
I remember buying N 75ED/T2 stylus for my M75B cart a while ago, and they (Thakker.eu) had two options for "ED" stylus. One was Swiss-made (EVG?) and the other one simply said "Thakker Japan", which ended up being a genuine Jico. It even says so on the box... So it's not really that difficult to find Jico styli for these older Shures, you just have to look in right direction :)

On the other hand, my other, "Mexican" Shure M94 with dark-blue aftermarket stylus didn't have a brand (or technical specs), which leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Some folks here at AK suggested that it COULD be Jico, because of the black dot on cantilever, but other than taking a closer look under the microscope, there's no way to tell the exact specs & build quality.
I didn't mean that it was difficult to find JICO; rather, there are a lot of Japanese-made aftermarket styli that people assume are JICO without any proof and it's easy to end up with one of these. They're OK but not as good as NOS.
If you check around here at AK, you'll find a few long threads regarding the source of EVG, Tonar, and LP Gear styli among others. A lot of speculation, but no hard information.
JICO styli are easy to find, you can get them from LP Tunes, or Ebay, or direct from Japan. But they do change the way the cartridge sounds, regardless of the diamond shape. If you loved your M95 for years but now need a new stylus, you might not love it as much with a JICO replacement.
Personally, I have had nothing but problems with Mexican-made Shure gear. For example, the diamond on my M97xe was visibly off-azimuth.
 
I didn't mean that it was difficult to find JICO; rather, there are a lot of Japanese-made aftermarket styli that people assume are JICO without any proof and it's easy to end up with one of these. They're OK but not as good as NOS.
If you check around here at AK, you'll find a few long threads regarding the source of EVG, Tonar, and LP Gear styli among others. A lot of speculation, but no hard information.
JICO styli are easy to find, you can get them from LP Tunes, or Ebay, or direct from Japan. But they do change the way the cartridge sounds, regardless of the diamond shape. If you loved your M95 for years but now need a new stylus, you might not love it as much with a JICO replacement.
Personally, I have had nothing but problems with Mexican-made Shure gear. For example, the diamond on my M97xe was visibly off-azimuth.
Right, gotcha.

And yes, that is one of the reasons I pointed out that M94 was Mexican. Although, TBH I've had it since around early 2000s, and never had any issues with mine, especially back in a day. Unfortunately, the original N94 E stylus gave out earlier this year, around January & had to be replaced. And since I couldn't find N94 anywhere, either generic one or original, I had to go with N92 E, N99 E generic replacements. Got two of them actually, one was sold to me as N92 E replacement, and the other (same) stylus was sold as N 104E.
 
Right, gotcha.

And yes, that is one of the reasons I pointed out that M94 was Mexican. Although, TBH I've had it since around early 2000s, and never had any issues with mine, especially back in a day. Unfortunately, the original N94 E stylus gave out earlier this year, around January & had to be replaced. And since I couldn't find N94 anywhere, either generic one or original, I had to go with N92 E, N99 E generic replacements. Got two of them actually, one was sold to me as N92 E replacement, and the other (same) stylus was sold as N 104E.
Not the same to my eye.
 
Not the same to my eye.
The right one seems to have a "sliced" section, a cutout on suspension housing. The brass part, which plugs into the cartridge. But other than that, they both appear the same *shrug* Unless I'm missing something obvious?
 
With the op being new to tt’s is the op readjusting the tonearm with every headshell swap?
 
Back
Top Bottom