Audio Technica P-Mount styli NOT from LPGear/LPTunes?

[ElectTech]

Recently, I had been looking into getting a higher end replacement stylus for my AT92E P-mount cart, settling on a microline from LPGear. They proceeded to ship me a bent stylus, blame the damages on me, and refuse to authorize a return. Long story short, I don’t really feel like giving them more money right now.

I hope you haven't bought from BestBuy, they are notorious to automatically blame customers for anything they do wrong. Can't you dispute the charge on your credit card, PayPal, etc.?
I have had the AT92E on one of my turntables for about 10 years, a JVC AL-FQ5. It sounds fine to me. That turntable fits only P-mount cartridges.
I have the AT95E and the AT-VM95E on my other DD QL turntables, for me they sound better than the AT92E. The AT-VM95E has several options for stylus upgrades, such as the AT-VM95ML (with Microlinear stylus).
BTW, I don't want to open a "debate" on phono preamps, solid state or tubes, but if your phono preamp uses a DIP8 opamp, then you should try the OPA2134 opamp with FET inputs. This is the type of phono preamp I use, it sounds very good to me, and I have tested many different opamps. For instance, for the AT-VM95E cartridge you should match the load impedance of the preaamp at 47k Ohms.

 

[vproc]

I hope you haven't bought from BestBuy, they are notorious to automatically blame customers for anything they do wrong. Can't you dispute the charge on your credit card, PayPal, etc.?

Nope, directly from LPGear, although I do think it’s known that their customer service is quite lacking. After going back and forth with them, I did dispute the charge with my bank, but that was a while ago and I doubt that it’s going to go anywhere.

The AT-VM95E has several options for stylus upgrades, such as the AT-VM95ML (with Microlinear stylus).

I believe this is my next step (at least for the stylus). My AT231LP linear contact arrived recently, and I decided to test it against the original elliptical stylus that came with the AT95E. I recorded both styli on the same track through my mixer to my PC, and was able to do some A-B listening tests, instantaneously switching between the two recordings to mitigate bias. It surprised me to hear how similar the two were (especially since the elliptical stylus was used, and the 231 was new in box and looked absolutely pristine). The 231 did have a slightly different tone, presenting some of the higher frequencies a little better than the elliptical, but for me to really hear a difference I had to isolate certain channels and loop certain sections of the recording. I haven’t had much experience with different styli, so I am unsure if they are similar because the standard elliptical is so good, or my 231LP is so bad.

So, next test—how does the AT-VM95ML stylus sound (and how much more money can I spend before I regret my actions)?

 

[lini]

(...) My AT231LP linear contact arrived recently, and I decided to test it against the original elliptical stylus that came with the AT95E. (...)

Did you give the 231LP some run-in time before the comparison? Most typically the tracking ability of new needles isn't quite optimal yet - so I'd suggest to give new needles some 10 to 20 hours of play-time to reach the optimal tracking ability.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[vproc]

Did you give the 231LP some run-in time before the comparison? Most typically the tracking ability of new needles isn't quite optimal yet - so I'd suggest to give new needles some 10 to 20 hours of play-time to reach the optimal tracking ability.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

I did not! Thanks for the advice—I didn’t know that.

Still, I can’t help but wonder how similar or different other styli might sound to each other. I’m unreasonably curious to see how much of a difference a ML would truly make (must… compare… more… styli!)

 

[flavio81]

I did not! Thanks for the advice—I didn’t know that.

Still, I can’t help but wonder how similar or different other styli might sound to each other. I’m unreasonably curious to see how much of a difference a ML would truly make (must… compare… more… styli!)

If what you mean is, two identical cantilevers, and identical cartridges, and only the stylus tip changes, like the AT-VM95EN (note the N) vs the AT-VM95ML,

The difference will be readily, easily audible with worn and damaged records, even more near the inner grooves. Records where there are audible distortions there. The ML will often play the record as if it was undamaged. Night and day difference.

While if the record was mint, the EN and the ML would probably sound identical or almost identical.

 

[vproc]

If what you mean is, two identical cantilevers, and identical cartridges, and only the stylus tip changes, like the AT-VM95EN (note the N) vs the AT-VM95ML,

The difference will be readily, easily audible with worn and damaged records, even more near the inner grooves. Records where there are audible distortions there. The ML will often play the record as if it was undamaged. Night and day difference.

While if the record was mint, the EN and the ML would probably sound identical or almost identical.

That’s what I expected from the linear contact stylus, as, in theory, it should have had a similar effect. I tested on a rather worn record with plenty of pops and clicks, and I found that I couldn’t hear a difference in terms of audible damage when compared to the elliptical.

 

[flavio81]

That’s what I expected from the linear contact stylus, as, in theory, it should have had a similar effect. I tested on a rather worn record with plenty of pops and clicks, and I found that I couldn’t hear a difference in terms of audible damage when compared to the elliptical.

i'm not referring to damage as "pops and clicks", i'm referring to sibilance and mistracking on loud / high energy passages.

 

[ignoramustot]

Recently, I had been looking into getting a higher end replacement stylus for my AT92E P-mount cart, settling on a microline from LPGear. They proceeded to ship me a bent stylus, blame the damages on me, and refuse to authorize a return. Long story short, I don’t really feel like giving them more money right now.

In terms of other options, I couldn’t find much except the BLISS brand from turntableneedles.com. They’ve got a shibata, linear contact, and two hyperellipticals I could try (links below). I’ve seen these mentioned here or there, but outside of the reviews on their website, it seems like opinions are mixed (as quality depends on their current supplier), so I’m left wondering if they’d still be a good buy. What do you all think? Any other places I could buy good replacement styli?

ATS8008 Type Shibata Stylus for Audio-Technica AT8008 - our Needle 213-DSH

Natural Linear Contact Stylus for Audio-Techinca AT3482P etc | Turntable Needles

ATS6006 Type Stylus for Studio Reference Series 6006 cartridge - our Needle 213-DHE

Hyperelliptical Upgrade for audio-techinca AT3482P AT85EP etc | TurntableNeedles

Hi, I also recently noticed the high-end BLISSpro styli for the AT82CP, AT85, AT3472, etc at turntableneedles.

I'm currently running an ATN3472SE elliptical on what was originally an AT82CP in a Technics SL-7 linear tracker that I picked up a couple of years ago, and I am interested in stylus upgrades that don't cost me a JICO-arm-and-leg by the time I import them into Australia.

So I am likewise keen to read about any experience with the BLISSpro styli, given there is quite an interesting range of styli available, with some big claims for them from turntableneedles. Anyone out there used one? What do you think of it?

I am particularly keen to hear about the compliance for these, given the short stiff tonearm of the SL-7 prefers compliant styli, I understand.

Cheers,
Rob in Melbourne, Australia

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Hi, I also recently noticed the high-end BLISSpro styli for the AT82CP, AT85, AT3472, etc at turntableneedles.

I'm currently running an ATN3472SE elliptical on what was originally an AT82CP in a Technics SL-7 linear tracker that I picked up a couple of years ago, and I am interested in stylus upgrades that don't cost me a JICO-arm-and-leg by the time I import them into Australia.

So I am likewise keen to read about any experience with the BLISSpro styli, given there is quite an interesting range of styli available, with some big claims for them from turntableneedles. Anyone out there used one? What do you think of it?

I am particularly keen to hear about the compliance for these, given the short stiff tonearm of the SL-7 prefers compliant styli, I understand.

Cheers,
Rob in Melbourne, Australia

For T4p mount applications most generic styli if not all are no go. They require more tracking force than the T4p standard (1.25 grams tracking force, 6 grams mass). Buy the current A-T T4p mount cartridge (as that's the best you can do) then plan for a turntable which isn't hobbled by that problem.

 

[ignoramustot]

Thanks Kent. I've asked Turntable Needles about the compliance of their BLISSpro styli - no response yet. If I get a response, I will post it here. The TTN website descriptions of those styli hint that they may be working closely with AT or another source for parts, although they say the styli are assembled in America, so perhaps not.

 

[vproc]

Update on the styli testing. I recently purchased a ATVMN45xML, using it with my p-mount table via the method described by @flavio81. When comparing to both the 231LP and the elliptical, I did notice a decrease in perceived sibilance, but only because the ML presented less of the very high frequencies. I’m pretty confident on this, since I was able to get the ML and 231 recordings to sound practically the same by applying a VERY slight low pass filter on the 231. To double check, I used the ML on my standard mount table with the proper tracking force. Same result.
Now, neither the ML or 231 had been broken-in—take that as you will. And of course, these experiences are my own, and I do not intend to discredit anyone else’s experiences or opinions.

I'm currently running an ATN3472SE elliptical on what was originally an AT82CP in a Technics SL-7 linear tracker that I picked up a couple of years ago, and I am interested in stylus upgrades that don't cost me a JICO-arm-and-leg by the time I import them into Australia.

Quite honestly, the ATN3472SE is a lot better than we give it credit for. That’s the elliptical I used in my testing, and it held up damn well under extreme scrutiny. Seeing as some higher-end styli can be a hit or miss, if I had to give any advice I’d say that there’s nothing wrong with sticking with the elliptical you already have, or replacing it with an elliptical straight from AT.

 

[flavio81]

Update on the styli testing. I recently purchased a ATVMN45xML, using it with my p-mount table via the method described by @flavio81

I created my post recommending the needles of the VM540ML and those series. The "x" series (i.e. 45XML) have lower compliance and are not as suitable.

You should not get any sibilance. not even with the basic conical (VMN10CB stylus). If you're getting that, the record is suspect. Or the tonearm might be damaged.

 

[vproc]

I created my post recommending the needles of the VM540ML and those series. The "x" series (i.e. 45XML) have lower compliance and are not as suitable.

You should not get any sibilance. not even with the basic conical (VMN10CB stylus). If you're getting that, the record is suspect. Or the tonearm might be damaged.

I see. Although I did try the stylus on a standard mount table for this reason, and didn’t find a difference. I suppose it could be the actual recording quality of the record, but I did choose a pretty old and worn record that hopefully naturally developed sibilance over time rather than having it baked-in from the get go. I’ll go back and test for inner-groove distortion to see if I notice a difference.

Update: Yeah, after testing an inner track with audible sibilance, I’m not noticing any actual reduction in sibilance with the ML, just less perceived sibilance due to the lesser frequency response. Of course, it’s possible that the record I’m testing is just a poor quality recording.

 

[jrtrent]

I see. Although I did try the stylus on a standard mount table for this reason, and didn’t find a difference. I suppose it could be the actual recording quality of the record, but I did choose a pretty old and worn record that hopefully naturally developed sibilance over time rather than having it baked-in from the get go. I’ll go back and test for inner-groove distortion to see if I notice a difference.

This footnote from a Stereophile article is in keeping with my limited experience with an ML stylus (limited in that the only one I've owned was on an AT440ML):

Footnote 12: Changing to a different cartridge can sometime work sonic wonders with old records, due to the new stylus riding on a different, relatively undamaged part of the groove wall. On the other hand, changing to a cartridge with a long-contact profile, Microridge or van den Hul, for example, can often increase surface noise and the reading of groove damage due to the stylus's being in contact with more of the groove wall.—JA

Update: Yeah, after testing an inner track with audible sibilance, I’m not noticing any actual reduction in sibilance with the ML, just less perceived sibilance due to the lesser frequency response. Of course, it’s possible that the record I’m testing is just a poor quality recording.

One of my favorite cartridges for getting the most pleasure out of worn or poor quality records was the Shure M97xE. If I was using another cartridge at the time, I used to keep a special place on my record shelves for lp's I didn't want to throw out before trying them with an M97xE. Perhaps it's no coincidence that TNT-Audio's comments on the Shure included, "As can be gleaned from the frequency response plots the tonal balance darkens progressively towards the treble, a bit like a classic Quad preamp with the 'tilt' control down all three notches."

 

[flavio81]

Update: Yeah, after testing an inner track with audible sibilance, I’m not noticing any actual reduction in sibilance with the ML

You will get less distortions if a record is damaged and you use a ML instead

This footnote from a Stereophile article is in keeping with my limited experience with an ML stylus (limited in that the only one I've owned was on an AT440ML):

Footnote 12: Changing to a different cartridge can sometime work sonic wonders with old records, due to the new stylus riding on a different, relatively undamaged part of the groove wall. On the other hand, changing to a cartridge with a long-contact profile, Microridge or van den Hul, for example, can often increase surface noise and the reading of groove damage due to the stylus's being in contact with more of the groove wall.—JA

Disagree with the part in bold. If we understand "groove damage" as "damaged sibilance" or "damaged audio signal", not "tics, pops and noise that is not related to the music".

The ML stylus (and others) reduce the impact of such damage.

 

[ElectTech]

There is a comparison here about that. The only difference is the stylus. Same everything else. I have seen people doing this same comparison but adding the audio of a CD to the E and ML styli comparisons -- that is a good intention and effort, but the CD audio comes from a [quite] different audio source and processing.

AT-VM95E vs. AT-VM95ML Stylus Comparison

 

[flavio81]

There is a comparison here about that. The only difference is the stylus. Same everything else. I have seen people doing this same comparison but adding the audio of a CD to the E and ML styli comparisons -- that is a good intention and effort, but the CD audio comes from a [quite] different audio source and processing.

AT-VM95E vs. AT-VM95ML Stylus Comparison

That's a video that uses the beginning of the record. I'd expect them to sound similar (note that the ML has a different cantilever alloy than the E stylus, you can see this if you examine them, plus the ML is a nude mounted stylus -- different resonance frequency and you can hear the difference). But for practical purposes, very similar.

Frankly, at the beginning of the record, if they had the same cantilever material and both were nude mounted, at the beginning of the record, on a record in pristine shape, i'd predict them to sound identical. Identical.

As the video comment says: "The real, dramatic difference is when you play a worn record at the inner grooves. At that circumstance the 95ML will be much, much superior."

 

[ElectTech]

Yes. And the same guy also took the time (kudos to him) to test 'Inner Groove Distortion' comparing the AT-VM95E with the AT-VM95ML. But you have to download the FLAC files. I did. I compared/listened to the files using a corded Sony MDR-7506 Headphone connected to my computer (the sound card is quite decent). For me, the ML is overall better for worn LPs, no doubt. If that is worth USD 100.00 more, it will depend on everyone's personal choice. The 'E' version is just fine to me; probably the 'C' conical version would be fine too. I actually have the 'E' version on my JVC QL-F4 with the following phono preamp (Toshiba SY-665).

AT-VM95E vs. AT-VM95ML Inner Groove Distortion Comparison

 

[ignoramustot]

I created my post recommending the needles of the VM540ML and those series.

Hi @flavio81 can you share here a link to that post, please? I went looking for it without success.
I am very keen to identify which current (or recently superseded but still available) AT ML styli can be used successfully with which AT T4P / P-mount cartridges, particularly in linear tracking TTs such as my Technics SL-7, where a tracking force as close as possible to the T4P standard is critical, as is high compliance.

(Perhaps @lini , @wualta and other AK knowledgeables can chip in here as well, pls. Lots of very valuable perspectives and experience around here! )

 

[loudnoises]

Hi @flavio81 can you share here a link to that post, please? I went looking for it without success.
I am very keen to identify which current (or recently superseded but still available) AT ML styli can be used successfully with which AT T4P / P-mount cartridges, particularly in linear tracking TTs such as my Technics SL-7, where a tracking force as close as possible to the T4P standard is critical, as is high compliance.

(Perhaps @lini , @wualta and other AK knowledgeables can chip in here as well, pls. Lots of very valuable perspectives and experience around here! )

The sl-7 is a bit uncommon for a t4p table in that you can actually adjust the tracking force. It's not locked to 1.25g, so if the stylus physically fits, you should be able to use the modern 1.4g vtf styli. I believe you get at least .25g up or down, maybe .5g. It's designed to use the pmount carts but even back then there was a desire to adjust.

Compliance is an exacting science with a very fuzzy implementation. Rarely are specs published and they're often not comparable between brands. Proper vtf range is a reasonably good indicator.