• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Going to some sort of shibata from Denon DL-110 elliptical?

DavidTT said:
Regarding the OP's question in the first post, I would love to see/hear someone's thoughts about direct comparison of the ATV95ML vs ATVM95SH. I bought the SH version for two reasons: (1) I read multiple posts wherein users noted the ML as being overly bright, and (2) I found an open-box SH at a large discount and couldn't pass it up.

In my systems the SH is a very nice sounding cartridge, not overly bright, but fulsome, detailed, a much better cartridge than any version of the AT95E I have ever heard (and I've heard many of the permutations of the AT95E in existence). A view of the stylus under loupe shows a beautiful clear and well-mounted nude diamond. I'm still amazed at AT's pricing for this series of cartridges and don't miss a chance to praise them on these forums. Too many other posters appear to lump them in the the AT95E, which I did too. This is not a reshaping of the AT95E, this is a new series and better in all respects IMO.

Perhaps the shibata is not as 'advanced' as later cuts like the ML, but in this application I really love the SH version of the ATVM95 and think others would be wise to try it at some point. It's a raging bargain in HiFi.
Click to expand...

The ML is not overly bright. I measured the FR. How many other people did that? Even professional reviews show a very neutral FR at the correct loading. Either those people are full of it, they don't know how to load a cart, or you must be thinking of something else.
 
DavidTT said:
Regarding the OP's question in the first post, I would love to see/hear someone's thoughts about direct comparison of the ATV95ML vs ATVM95SH. I bought the SH version for two reasons: (1) I read multiple posts wherein users noted the ML as being overly bright, and (2) I found an open-box SH at a large discount and couldn't pass it up.

In my systems the SH is a very nice sounding cartridge, not overly bright, but fulsome, detailed, a much better cartridge than any version of the AT95E I have ever heard (and I've heard many of the permutations of the AT95E in existence). A view of the stylus under loupe shows a beautiful clear and well-mounted nude diamond. I'm still amazed at AT's pricing for this series of cartridges and don't miss a chance to praise them on these forums. Too many other posters appear to lump them in the the AT95E, which I did too. This is not a reshaping of the AT95E, this is a new series and better in all respects IMO.

Perhaps the shibata is not as 'advanced' as later cuts like the ML, but in this application I really love the SH version of the ATVM95 and think others would be wise to try it at some point. It's a raging bargain in HiFi.
Click to expand...

I absolutely love RAGING BARGAINS. That's my thing actually. I'm a value shopper, and I appreciate the intersection of price and quality. The ATVM95ML and ATVP95SH are about the same price, and both are within the budget I established.

I'm very happy with the input I've received in this thread. I've gotten some direct comparison feedback as well as some new information. What a community! Thanks everybody for the time you've put into your contributions. Very much appreciated.
 
In my experience, the sound improvement is real. As for setup difficulties, the advanced stylus shapes make VTA much more critical, and tonearm height-adjustment capability is a practical necessity.

I doubt I'll shop for another elliptical stylus, ever again.
 
sqlsavior said:
In my experience, the sound improvement is real. As for setup difficulties, the advanced stylus shapes make VTA much more critical, and tonearm height-adjustment capability is a practical necessity.

I doubt I'll shop for another elliptical stylus, ever again.
Click to expand...

If tonearm height adjustment is not on a TT, you can still adjust VTA. You just shim the cart at the headshell. This is what I do. Using an acrylic VTA block (usually 10 bucks or so) you can verify that the VTA is correct. The correct VTA for a lot of newer AT carts is 23 degrees.

QLuxkBEl.jpg


You can see the shim in my pic above.

Been using advanced shapes for years now. I've tried other stuff, but always come back to the ML/MR shape.
 
The Shibata doesn't increase wear, it decreased it. They needed a design which would be able to retrieve the upper frequencies, so the Shibata profile increased the contact surface area over the other profiles like conical and ellipticals which in turned decreased the contact pressures all the while keeping in contact with the groove walls. On the sticky's at the top of the turntable forums their is one on stylus profiles it helps show the contact areas of the different profiles and explains it in more detail.

I have not tried the AT MM carts yet, but the LOMC AT's can be had for around half the price of retail, but you have to go to eBay and do a search. As far as value that is why I use the AT OC9/II and the AT OC9/III. So far they are the best value that I have found for $300 dollars, for what you get.

AT's MM carts are not that much less then the LOMC carts I listed. I know this might seem a bit strange, but AT's MM carts look so cheaply made compared to their LOMC carts. That cheap crappy looking bright plastic stylus holder on a cheap looking tin sheet metal case just reeks cheap. In my mind they must sound cheap. I know it is not an indicator of the sound quality but compared to the build quality of their LOMC carts its a turn off to me. ;)
 
Last edited:
KentTeffeteller said:
Shibatas are better on HF retrieval, but not the best on record wear. CD-4 records in most cases were 10 or 12 plays before Sandpaper Quad (Japanese CD-4 discs wore better). But worn Shibatas are much more wearing to records as they give you little warning they're worn.
Click to expand...
Not true Shibata and ml and similar cuts wear themselves and vinyl LESS than other stylus due to increased surface area.
Chris
 
Ken Boyd said:
AT's MM carts are not that much less then the LOMC carts I listed. I know this might seem a bit strange, but AT's MM carts look so cheaply made compared to their LOMC carts. That cheap crappy looking bright plastic stylus holder on a cheap looking tin sheet metal case just reeks cheap. In my mind they must sound cheap. I know it is not an indicator of the sound quality but compared to the build quality of their LOMC carts its a turn off to me. ;)
Click to expand...

We listen with our ears, not our eyes, yet folks often fixate on how something looks rather than how it actually performs or how it sounds. These carts may look cheap, but the performance under objective and subjective evaluation is anything but cheap. Matter of fact, the AT MMs track and trace better than the MCs AT sells, even a cart like the ART 9. Haven't heard the new OC9X series yet, so it's possible those work a bit better than AT's old MCs.

And not everyone wants an MC cart. Last year I made a conscious decision NOT to run MC and bought a high performance MM phono preamp. For the same money or less, I could've purchased an MC compatible phono pre but decided not to do that.
 
cafe latte said:
Not true Shibata and ml and similar cuts wear themselves and vinyl LESS than other stylus due to increased surface area.
Chris
Click to expand...

If you replace them before first wear flats and keep them microscope inspected regularly. And if you like pre 1970's vinyl pressings, mono, or 45 RPM single discs they're the wrong stylus. I use a ML for modern audiophile discs. But that's what I use it for.
 
KentTeffeteller said:
If you replace them before first wear flats and keep them microscope inspected regularly. And if you like pre 1970's vinyl pressings, mono, or 45 RPM single discs they're the wrong stylus. I use a ML for modern audiophile discs. But that's what I use it for.
Click to expand...
Stylus wear is actually rather exaggerated as the test on VE showed. All profiles wear eventually, but to wear so they actually damage the vinyl wear needs to be considerable. Wear flats are often nothing more than super polished areas, yes eventually actual flats form but truth is most stylus are changed before needed. The tests Ray did was with very clean vinyl (so are mine though) and he used a linear tracking turntable too which is more likely to form flats as the arm is only ever in one plane. He arrived at 800 hours with no flats formed at all, but polished areas which would wear vinyl less not more.
Chris
 
patient_ot said:
We listen with our ears, not our eyes, yet folks often fixate on how something looks rather than how it actually performs or how it sounds. These carts may look cheap, but the performance under objective and subjective evaluation is anything but cheap. Matter of fact, the AT MMs track and trace better than the MCs AT sells, even a cart like the ART 9. Haven't heard the new OC9X series yet, so it's possible those work a bit better than AT's old MCs.

And not everyone wants an MC cart. Last year I made a conscious decision NOT to run MC and bought a high performance MM phono preamp. For the same money or less, I could've purchased an MC compatible phono pre but decided not to do that.
Click to expand...

I posted to the OP in order to help him in his quest for something new. Quality materials which provide a better looking product is an added benefit.
 
KentTeffeteller said:
If you replace them before first wear flats and keep them microscope inspected regularly. And if you like pre 1970's vinyl pressings, mono, or 45 RPM single discs they're the wrong stylus. I use a ML for modern audiophile discs. But that's what I use it for.
Click to expand...
Why mono? Because they’re usually also pre-1970s pressings? Or some other reason?
 
Tracking angle different. Tip size which plays them best different. And because the Shibata was not designed for best mono playback, the Shibata was designed originally for CD-4 quadraphonic discs (and period Stereo discs under optimum conditions).
 
KentTeffeteller said:
Tracking angle different. Tip size which plays them best different. And because the Shibata was not designed for best mono playback, the Shibata was designed originally for CD-4 quadraphonic discs (and period Stereo discs under optimum conditions).
Click to expand...
Interesting. I have an Ortofon elliptical that I use mostly for 45s and I’m using the ML for most everything else. I haven’t had any issues playing mono LPs, but maybe I would get better results if I picked up an elliptical stylus for the A-T. I could use the Ortofon, but I don’t like it nearly as much.
 
patient_ot said:
The point is Shibata was superseded by better advanced shapes down the line. Go read the patent docs for FG and MR, then compare the drawings to the Shibata drawings and you will quickly see why. These other shapes have a much thinner side radius for one and are more extreme cuts that achieve most of the non-quad goals of the Shibata shape, but work better. That is why they were invented.

RE: marketing, it doesn't matter if you read any materials or not, because people tend to regurgitate that stuff on forums and such. Dealers and shops too, even cart companies themselves. They will charge more for a Shibata shape in many cases, because the sourcing costs are higher - AT for one, has said as much very plainly. Yet from a technical standpoint, there is nothing superior about Shibata compared to MR or FG. And people will often assume because something costs more, it must be better. That's marketing and incorrect assumptions at work.
Click to expand...
And that's the assumption I had when getting the VM760SLC as opposed to the 740ML stylus which I now have. I have since forgotten what the 760 sounded like, but I'd bet in an A-B test, the 740 would track better than the 760 for my taste.
 
KentTeffeteller said:
Unless you play CD-4 Quadraphonic LP discs, why do you need a Shibata? That's what they were designed for. A Microline or a Fritz Gyger is a better high end tip.
Click to expand...

ugh here we go again.....why are you so against Shibata and it only being for CD-4 !!! The Other profiles also are Specified for playing CD-4 as well . And A stylus than can retrieve those higher frequencies will excel in the audible level frequencies!!!

I read a lot of posts here and there are many who use ML,MR and SH for CD-4 playback and also who say Shibates have a certain sound they love for 2 channel playback.


I love my Shibatas and Love my ML's but to me I prefer the sound of the Shibata .

Geeze

nashou
 
Nashou66 said:
ugh here we go again.....why are you so against Shibata and it only being for CD-4 !!! The Other profiles also are Specified for playing CD-4 as well . And A stylus than can retrieve those higher frequencies will excel in the audible level frequencies!!!

I read a lot of posts here and there are many who use ML,MR and SH for CD-4 playback and also who say Shibates have a certain sound they love for 2 channel playback.


I love my Shibatas and Love my ML's but to me I prefer the sound of the Shibata .

Geeze

nashou
Click to expand...

Shibata was designed for CD-4. ML, MR, and Fritz Gyger do CD-4, but designed more for Stereo, all 3 outperform and outtrack a Shibata, the Audio-Technica ML is better than Shibata at the same thing, and considerably less expensive to boot. The latter 3, the StereoHedron, and their ilk were more refined, better line contact styli and do everything Shibata does but better. Why spend more for Shibata, when ML is less expensive. Save some money and get the newer, more refined, better tip design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom