Are there any advantages to less advanced styli?

[yofi]

Six years ago I almost gave up on vinyl due to IGD. The Hail Mary that saved it all for me was buying a VM95SH. It tracks inner grooves almost flawlessly, the exceptions are few enough that I’m willing to concede that some records are better than others.

So here I am doing a lot of reading up on MC and MI carts in the entry level ($500 or less) and wondering if there is even any benefit to derive from them? Carts like the DL 103 are conical, the DL 110, new Ortofon MC X10, and Grado Opus3 are all bonded elliptical.

The democratization of advanced styli shapes seems like a recent development. It seems like folks happily used conicals and ellipticals for decades prior.

Is there a dichotomy at play where newer pressings (most of my collection) benefit from advanced styli for tracking and information retrieval but older records (a growing part of my collection) are more optimized for conicals or ellipticals?

And finally, would I benefit from having a cart like a DL 103/110 in a headshell ready to roll for older records and less challenging newer records?

 

[SONDEKNZ]

Just a word of caution.

The DENON’s - DL-103(R) and DL110 - are both great carts, but very different.

We own both, but are lucky enough to have a tonearm that can morph from 11.5g Eff. Mass to almost 30g Eff. Mass.

IMHO, chances are one will suit you and your system more than the other.

Also, the DL110 takes forever to hit its straps and sounds like rubbish for the first 10-15 hours playback. A BIG mistake to give-up on it too early, however…

 

[flavio81]

Six years ago I almost gave up on vinyl due to IGD.

You are implying that IGD is something that can only be overcome with advanced stylus tip shapes, and this is not entirely correct.

I already helped you with this reply regarding IGD on other thread, i hope you had read it:

Post in thread 'Ortofon 2M Red setup.'

Jan 24, 2026

@yofi

Great to hear that you are getting this IGD minimised - or perhaps even eradicated altogether!

I wanted to share that I too have spend thousands of hours experimenting, trying to eliminate IGD.

I have come to the conclusion that it is not all about the cartridge. In fact, some of our worst performing carts (IGD) now perform superbly - and completely without IGD.

IMHO, it is all about eliminating micro-movements in the turntable and tonearm; the Eff. Mass. matching with the cart of choice and phono stage settings for loading - which equates to optimised impedance for MC...

• flavio81

• 

 

[yofi]

You are implying that IGD is something that can only be overcome with advanced stylus tip shapes, and this is not entirely correct.

I already helped you with this reply regarding IGD on other thread, i hope you had read it:

Post in thread 'Ortofon 2M Red setup.'

Jan 24, 2026

@yofi

Great to hear that you are getting this IGD minimised - or perhaps even eradicated altogether!

I wanted to share that I too have spend thousands of hours experimenting, trying to eliminate IGD.

I have come to the conclusion that it is not all about the cartridge. In fact, some of our worst performing carts (IGD) now perform superbly - and completely without IGD.

IMHO, it is all about eliminating micro-movements in the turntable and tonearm; the Eff. Mass. matching with the cart of choice and phono stage settings for loading - which equates to optimised impedance for MC...

• flavio81

• 

I appreciate it.

Rather than a discussion about IGD I’m wondering what advantages conicals and ellipticals bring to the table. With correct setup, what can they do that advanced styli can’t or don’t?

And with entry level MC’s and MI’s having conicals and bonded ellipticals, can they be considered an upgrade over something like a cheaper MM with an microridge or Shibata?

Edit: an easy example that comes to mind is that people still enjoy the Denon DL-103. It has a conical stylus, which on paper seems like a limitation, but if it actually was a limitation, then that cartridge would have been in the bin and forgotten a long time ago. So clearly it’s not.

 

[knotscott]

There are several variables in play, but when all else is equal, historically I've liked the more refined detail of a line contact profile. Elliptical and conical are less critical of setup. In either case, I prefer a nude shank over bonded.

 

[flavio81]

With correct setup, what can they do that advanced styli can’t or don’t?

Some records, mainly between 1963-72, were cut with distortion compensation intended to work with the conical stylus. These records will only sound "right", particularly at the inner grooves, with a conical.

 

[W9TR]

Elliptical and conical stylii have more contact area with the record groove. Assuming a constant vertical tracking force (VTF), this means that these stylii will experience lower force per unit area and this lower wear over time.

That’s the big tradeoff as I see it. The more aggressive stylii profiles like microline and Shibata and their many variants will wear faster.

 

[malden]

The stylus tip is only one of several components that make up a stylus assembly. Everyone talks about "tip profile" because that can be easily visualized, along with the cantilever.

A properly designed and manufactured cartridge with a bonded conical tip can sound every bit as good as any cartridge with a fancy tip shape.

Many after-market needles have fancy nude tips mounted to inferior suspensions, this is ass-backwards. The suspension is more important than the shape of the tip assuming the tip is manufactured properly.

 

[flavio81]

Elliptical and conical stylii have more contact area with the record groove.

More than... ?

Elliptical and conical stylii have more contact area with the record groove (..) this means that these stylii will experience lower force per unit area and this lower wear over time. (...) The more aggressive stylii profiles like microline and Shibata and their many variants will wear faster.

It is the other way around.

Line contact stylus have more contact area than ellipticals and most conicals.

And thus, the line contact profiles have longer life.

 

[lini]

the DL 110, new Ortofon MC X10, and Grado Opus3 are all bonded elliptical.

The DL-110 actually sports are pretty nice, rectangular-shanked nudie.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[loudnoises]

Alignment can be much more forgiving with a conical.

 

[SomeGuy86]

(...)

Rather than a discussion about IGD I’m wondering what advantages conicals and ellipticals bring to the table. With correct setup, what can they do that advanced styli can’t or don’t?

From my, personal experience it's not /just/ about the stylus shape and/or alignment, but tracking force and cantilever design as well. About a year or so ago, I got my hands on Audio Technica VM510CB, bonded conical stylus that was meant for worn/beat albums with lots of surface noise and "abuse" marks ... kinda like the Beatles album, from the photo below...


Now, to be clear - I gave it a best possible chance to succeed. Mounted on a Technics 1210GR, with the tracking force fine-tuned to 2.00g by digital gauge and VTA just right, because I wanted that 510 to pay off. At the time I already had VM760 SLC, VM740 ML & VM530 EN, so the whole idea was to save premium cartridges for albums in mint condition, where 530EN and 510CB would handle the lower tiers so to speak.



However, right from the very beginning things took off to a wrong direction. That conical 510 was hissy, "clicky" ... as if the damn thing was finding every single imperfection and throwing it right back into my face. And I've tried just about everything ... from tinkering with the tracking force (within the specs) to completely switching off the anti-skate, hoping that something would make a difference. Nothing worked.

At some point I gave up on conical 510 and decided to move on with elliptical & Micro-Linear, since both of these acted more or less the same as conical, regardless of being far more technologically superior to a straightforward conical cut. It was only when I decided to give a highly compliant Shure M91GD one more try & bought the cheapest, Swiss-made bonded conical from Thakker, which tracks at around 1.25-1.50g on average when things actually changed "upside down" so to speak.

Most ... if not ALL of the surface noise magically disappeared and I was welcomed by the clean, deep sound without any (or rather, without any really noticeable) distortion. Some IGD remained obviously, but there was only so much I could do about this issue, with the 0.6 bonded conical. And that's it ... I never had the wishes (nor reason) to go back & mess around with 510 again. I still got the damn thing inside my drawer & right next to couple of 3600L which ironically have the better signature IMHO than VM 510...


Some people will probably argue on this, suggesting that I "got something wrong", but this experience also proved me that turntable alone does not (necessarily) make all the difference. Because at some point I gave up on 1210 and actually went back to my old/previous table, Audio Technica LP140. First out of curiosity, because I wanted to see the results ... but later because I found it to be much easier in the long run.

I really don't want to explain in here why 1210GR did not live up to my expectations but 140 did, but in the end I /did/ learn a very expensive lesson. Sometimes the cheaper option will outperform, wipe the floor if you wish with the more expensive one. Therefore, money/value does not necessarily guarantee more superior performance. Still, it gave me a rather bizarre and highly unusual opportunity to explore something which (under the normal, every-day circumstances) I would have never even considered.

Edit
Oh and by the way, while I'm already discussing expensive high-end vs cheap(er) conicals, here's something else to consider. I never really grew to like that top of the line 760SLC that much. I guess it was "okay" ... except for THAT price tag, settling for "okay" is not enough. On the other hand, Micro-Linear exceeded my expectations and became my go-to choice.

But here's something even better - neither 760SLC OR 740ML were ever capable of delivering as clean & quiet (surface noise) performance like the conical Shure M91GD.

 

[catBot]

Elliptical and conical stylii have more contact area with the record groove.

Wrong.
Ellipticals have far less contact area, hence their faster tear and wear.

 

[maxhifi]

They're cheaper, so if you listen to lots of records, there's less temptation to run an expensive stylus into the ground, just to save a few bucks. I think most people run their stylii too long as it is, and having something expensive only encourages this behavior. I always prefer the sound of a stylus in its first few hundred hours to whatever comes after.

 

[onwardjames]

To me and my experiences, conicals are forgiving, ellipticals have wear issues, and while more resolving, tend to pick up a bit more noise.

Hell, I don't know. Vinyl is so replete with ifs, ands and buts. Right now, I'm enjoying my Sl3200 technics with M7 Shure and the 100 buck upgraded conical. It's pretty amazing for resolution and all the audiphool goofiness, and tracks inner grooves very well. Funny enough, early tracks are a bit hissy.

I'm guessing my alignment is off. Need to get that MoFi Geo disk thing, as the tiny paper grids that come with carts seems difficult to use.

 

[Spinning45s]

From what I've read, the advantage of the elliptical stylus is that it more closely resembles the stylus that was used to cut the master disc. And as for stereo records, the elliptical shape better aligns the channels as to what they were in the original recording.

 

[sound hound]

To me and my experiences, conicals are forgiving

I agree. Even if it is mounted incorrectly on the cantilever, it presents the same picture to the record grooves. Round is round, even if it is twisted on the cantilever. And it seems to like pivoted tonearms better than the other stylus shapes do. They are more fussy.

 

[flavio81]

From my, personal experience it's not /just/ about the stylus shape and/or alignment, but tracking force and cantilever design as well. About a year or so ago, I got my hands on Audio Technica VM510CB, bonded conical stylus (...)

That conical 510 was hissy, "clicky" ... as if the damn thing was finding every single imperfection and throwing it right back into my face (...)
neither 760SLC OR 740ML were ever capable of delivering as clean & quiet (surface noise) performance like the conical Shure M91GD.

The problem is not the stylus. I've had the VM510CB and it's an awesome cartridge for the price.

The problem is that VM5XX and VM7XX cartridges are very sensitive to loading and capacitance. Get them wrong (too high capacitance and input impedance) and the highs are going to be artificially pronounced, and this will increase the amount of 'hiss', 'clicks' and other surface noises. The Shure M91 cartridge has been designed to work with a high input capacitance, which would make any audiotechnica VM5XX/7XX series sound horrible.

Thus, you had the same problem with the 760SLC and 740ML, both of which use essentially the same cartridge internals.

The culprit isn't the stylus tip shape.

 

[MER71]

I prefer conical stylus, the most. I honestly, can't find any faults with them. I own the AT3600, Goldring E2, ATVM510C and ATVM510xCB.

 

[ddarch]

I have 5-6 copies of Kind of Blue. The one original pressing I own was mistreated horribly, full of scratches and scuffs. It is unlistenable with anything other than a conical stylus. (Tried every other shape.) That was a revelation to me, as I was mostly accustomed to my Microline styli being the most quiet on most pressings. Dave