Hyper-ellyptical - worth the hype?

[dlaloum]

The AT95E actually has an elliptical stylus - that's what the 'E' in AT95E signifies - it's a 0.4 x 0.7 mil elliptical. But if it was available with a conical (it may be - perhaps there is an AT95C!) it would cost a bit less.

The AT95 with conical stylus is known as the AT3400....

 

[mhainz]

http://www.lpgear.com/product/AT5V.html

 

[Ultralyd]

I don't think there is anything else being manufactured out there at the top end of line contact needles. (someone is clearly still making Shibata's but that is a notch down from the Namiki/VdH/FG level)

I wonder what the Lyra and transfiguration use for their profile and who makes it?

bye for now

David

Line Contact:

http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridg...chi=&stid=&masslo=&masshi=&notes=&prlo=&prhi=

And then there are all the other styli shapes in family with line contact.
Just try a search on "micro" in stylus tip search option.

 

[onwardjames]

The M95 and M97 are the exact same body electrically - the only difference between them is the damping brush - which has a lot of benefits.

It not only controls the low frequency resonance (below 20Hz) but as a result also leads to reduced harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, and improved tracking...

I would definitely go for the M97 as the one for the SAS upgrade....

I have converted my p-mount Shures into pseudo M97-SAS - they also use the same generator as the M97 and M95, and when combined with the N97xE-SAS are very good indeed.

bye for now

David

Fantastic answer. Thank you! :thmbsp:

 

[neobop]

Most Lyra carts have a microridge (Namiki).

Newer Transfiguration carts have an Ogura PA - 3 x 30um. sharp elliptical? I noticed some older ones have a larger major radius.

The AT 3400 is a .6 spherical on a carbon cantilever. The ATN93 should fit the 95. It's a spherical on an aluminum cantilever.
neo

 

[gusten]

The AT95 with conical stylus is known as the AT3400....

Just to nitpick a little, there are no conical tips what I know, they are spherical.
gusten

 

[lini]

mh: In addition to Don's explanations above, you should also consider that there are more quality aspects to a phono diamond than just tip shape. I.e., if you'd for example check the diamonds of a DL103 and a random model with entry-level bonded (pseudo-)elliptical (e.g. an Ortofon OM(B)10, Audio Technica AT95E...) under the loupe, you could already easily see that the diamond on the DL103 is a high quality nudie with very good polishing - and if you had more exemplars of each to compare, you'd also notice that the exemplar variation also in terms of manufacturing precision/quality control is very low on the DL103, while you'd probably notice a good bit of variation on the cheap ellipticals especially regarding the orientation of the tip profile. Not to mention that you'd also notice that those cheap ellipticals most usually are just front/back-cut-trimmed, slightly polished-over, cheap conicals, so that this kind of ellipticals only delivers a rather limited improvement at best.

And then there's of course also the additional aspect of the quality of the cantilever. I'll save you from details on that for now, though. However, I'd suggest you to have a look at a good number of needle close-up pics (for example, you could start with Flavios very good info collection thread on "advanced stylus shapes" over on VE...) and also check the needles of your own carts under the loupe, so that you can compare and develop a feeling for needle quality grades - beyond just radii specs and more or less fancy tip shape names (which often enough are just different "brand names" for the same few original tip shape designs (exact dimensions vary more, though...)).

And then there's of course the aspect of "using the right tool for the job" - but I'd rather have more experienced users to explain the aspect of stylus shape compatibility to the majority of certain records types of certain eras - 'cause my own experience is pretty much limited to compartively modern stereo microgoove LPs from the mid 70s to the early 90s.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[lini]

gusten: Wait a moment, please - I've got to search a little for a reference, but it seems like there would be kind of conicals in a sense of slimmed sphericals - let me search... *short pause (*)* Yup, there you go: Either scroll down to or use the browser text search for "Spherical Tip on Fine Groove" on Yoshi's page on record specs (http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yosh/recspecs.htm). From that it would appear that one could propably use either term with a good reason.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

*) hit on the first try - not bad for my good old brain...

 

[gusten]

gusten: Wait a moment, please - I've got to search a little for a reference, but it seems like there would be kind of conicals in a sense of slimmed sphericals - let me search... *short pause (*)* Yup, there you go: Either scroll down to or use the browser text search for "Spherical Tip on Fine Groove" on Yoshi's page on record specs (http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yosh/recspecs.htm). From that it would appear that one could propably use either term with a good reason.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

*) hit on the first try - not bad for my good old brain...

I trust You lini on this.:yes:

gusten

 

[gusten]

If we look at these figures for harmonic distortion from Shure, I think we can actually use them both ways. If we want to we can say that the difference is very small between different shapes, we can also use the figures to point out the difference as something that can be readily heard as a much lower distortion.

If we instead of the distortion numbers we use dBs it is much better understood I think.
6,4%=-24dB, 4%=-28dB and 2,8%=-31dB. Then it´s easier to see that these differences, if they actually are correct in the first place, will be very difficult if at all possible to hear. Maybe it would be possible to hear for someone with an exeptional hearing, I don´t know, but to hear a difference at 16kHz of three or four dBs I think we just can forget.
gusten