Shure M95ED, M55E, M91ED, M97xE

[Blackdog61]

Bored from being shut in, i got out a 45-year-old Shure V15 Type III from my desk drawer, fitting it with a new Jico SAS-B stylus assembly. I then, with much difficulty, mounted it to a stock Technics Headshell and adjusted it to comply with the Technics tracking error scheme. I was rewarded with a sound that seems better in all manner that I know how to describe better from all of my other carts. This was a surprise for sure as I was not expecting the cart to perform better than my A-T OC9XML. At any rate, ya might want to try out the SAS-B stylus assembly.

Good to hear. Can you elaborate what you mean by ‘better’? Warmer, punchier, more detail, better imaging…….?

 

[SterlingOne]

Good to hear. Can you elaborate what you mean by ‘better’? Warmer, punchier, more detail, better imaging…….?

Yes, the tone is clear, the background is black as coal, and detail is like SACD. Frequency from lows to highs are seamless with no exaggerated bite on cello highs or muddy organ lows. And the cart delivers an almost surround sound like sound stage, The impression I get overall is the cart delivers a lifelike music presentation, preferable over my other carts, as well as other means to recorded music. Impressions come via Technics SL-1210GR connected to a 2.1 Parasound P6's phono stage delivering output to Sony TA-N9000ES and TA-N80ES Power Amps to JBL L100t3 mains and a JBL B380 subwoofer.

 

[spicer]

Regarding stylus break in, my experience is that with records. The first play of a record is the best play. The same with a new stylus, the first play is the best play. I used to trade them with new stock for the experience. The bloom lasted for maybe ten records before the immediate freshness of being new faded into a long period of good service. My carts at the time were an M91ED, V-15 type III, Stanton 681 EEE and Stanton 4DQ. Overall the Shure V-15 III was my favorite and I still have and use it. Both Stantons are in their boxes with almost new stylus' from the time, 1977, 78. Also have an almost new from the day Micro Acoustics 2002e in it's box which I installed then replaced with the Shure because I found it thin, lacking bass. I am not doubting break in period others experience, just sharing my experience when these products were new. The best experience for me was a new record with a virgin stylus.

 

[jrtrent]

My best guess is that Shure added inductance to accommodate what they perceived an industry trend to lower turntable cable/preamp capacitance (to accommodate requirements of CD-4 playback). All subsequent Shure designs were for lower load C.

I think you're right. Shure made that change in the late 1970's, and wrote:

"The proper loading to achieve this response is 47 kilohms, 250 pF. This is a change from previous Shure stereo cartridges since the recommended capacitance has been reduced. This value of capacitance is more typical of that available on present-day turntables and tone arm wiring. We feel the consumer need not worry about the exact capacitance value since a range from 150 pF to 350 pF will keep the typical response within the above published specifications. Therefore, in the vast majority of applications, flat response can be obtained without, any adjustments by the consumer."

 

[Severius!]

Dixie Dregs
+1

 

[Severius!]

OK - So, bottom line, what's the best replacement stylus for the M95ED?

Tonar? Jico? EVG? Some other source?

I've got an M95ED body with no stylus that I'd really love to activate, especially after reading all of the enthusiasm on this thread. Hoping to avoid sibilant brightness, tho.

 

[Crab33]

OK - So, bottom line, what's the best replacement stylus for the M95ED?

Tonar? Jico? EVG? Some other source?

I've got an M95ED body with no stylus that I'd really love to activate, especially after reading all of the enthusiasm on this thread. Hoping to avoid sibilant brightness, tho.

I use a genuine N95ED stylus but also have a Jico as a spare and I'd say the Jico provides 75 or 80% of the original's performance. Over the years, I have noted that people favour Jico but have also seen very good reports about the Tonar. My understanding (from a resident of this site in the stylus business) is that Jico and Tonar styli come from the same factory in Japan, but it seems that Tonar are generally cheaper. We think that the Japanese-made styli from the likes of LP Gear and William Thakker are also likely to be sourced from the same place.

I don't think you can completely avoid sibilance with these aftermarket styli and you may need to use them at a higher tracking force than the original - I would suggest starting at 1.5g and experimenting from there (both up and down). If you want to improve performance and possibly reduce sibilance further, it might be better to go for a Jico or Tonar hyper-elliptical, but this will cost you. I think people using the Jico HE stylus are generally very happy with it. Someone (if they exist) who has tried all the styli may be able to give you a definitive answer.

 

[dlaloum]

Nice catch Redd House. Thanks. I hadn't noticed that change in recommended load capacitance in the two versions M95ED (400-500pF) and M95ED/D (200-300pF). Comparing the two user guides.it looks like generator inductance increased from 650mH to 700mH when later adding the destaticizer brush. The lower load C then sorta makes sense. But I wonder why? Did the internal magnetic structure change? My best guess is that Shure added inductance to accommodate what they perceived an industry trend to lower turntable cable/preamp capacitance (to accommodate requirements of CD-4 playback). All subsequent Shure designs were for lower load C.



Published trackability and output voltage specs for the M95ED and M95ED/D are identical. Thus the two styli differ only in the brush. (Tip, cantilever, magnet, and suspension are the same.)

Just checked the original Shure manual ... the two with destaticizer brush, are in the same manual - the M95ED/D and the M95HE/D - all specifications are identical for the two - however the M95ED and the M95ED/D are unlikely to be identical.... the former has 400-500pf recommended the latter 200-300pf.

The underlying body is the same: 700mH - but the high capacitance suggested for the ED stylus, implies a cantilever resonance at a lower frequency, and the need to roll it down at an earlier frequency as a result to achieve relatively flat f/r - only way to know for sure would be to test it... get a F/R chart at known parameters (C/R loading), then deduct the modelled electrical response of that circuit from the measured performance - doing that (and I have done it for a number of cartridges/styli) - immediately exposes the cantilever resonance - and the frequency of that resonance, in turn informs you what the mass of the stylus is.

Just as an indication - I have two SAS styli (one for M97/M95, the other for V15V) and using that method, have identified that one has a resonance at 14khz the other at 16kHz... so production variation on a very well known high end stylus can be measured!

Also worthy of note: the M95xx/D models also have the following in their manual - load resistance can be up to 70,000 ohms... - this is usually a hint as to the right R loading to get the best from these... if using NOS needles 67k should be tried for the R load! (with total C of circa 250pf).

There is also a review of the M95ED here - it also has a brief paragraph on loading:
https://phono-cartridge-reviews.co.uk/reviews/shure-m95ed/

 

[dlaloum]

I use a genuine N95ED stylus but also have a Jico as a spare and I'd say the Jico provides 75 or 80% of the original's performance. Over the years, I have noted that people favour Jico but have also seen very good reports about the Tonar. My understanding (from a resident of this site in the stylus business) is that Jico and Tonar styli come from the same factory in Japan, but it seems that Tonar are generally cheaper. We think that the Japanese-made styli from the likes of LP Gear and William Thakker are also likely to be sourced from the same place.

I don't think you can completely avoid sibilance with these aftermarket styli and you may need to use them at a higher tracking force than the original - I would suggest starting at 1.5g and experimenting from there (both up and down). If you want to improve performance and possibly reduce sibilance further, it might be better to go for a Jico or Tonar hyper-elliptical, but this will cost you. I think people using the Jico HE stylus are generally very happy with it. Someone (if they exist) who has tried all the styli may be able to give you a definitive answer.

I have run them with the Jico SAS stylus - assuming correct adjusting of loading - there are no sibilance issued.

I have also experimented with the Jico standard replacement needles - you cannot assume the original voicing is applicable - it needs to be adjusted for the Jico needle - if properly adjusted, sibilance is not an issue.

1) tracking force likely to need a bit more than the original,
2) Jico damping brushes do have an impact, but the absence of the damping grease in the hinge means it is far less than the original, and the compensating force adjustment is lower than the original too...
3) due to reduced impact of the damping brush, they are more sensitive to arm mass missmatches - they like low mass arms, can live with low-mid, are likely to suffer with Mid mass and up
4) correct loading is tricky without measuring.... it ain't the original

Note: the body is the same as the M97 as well so there is lots of flexibility in terms of available styli - the loading also differs when switching to those styli

 

[dlaloum]

C is the combined total ot the tonearm wires, the cable to the preamp and the phono stage input. 50-60pF total load is unachievable. I don't know of any phono stages with an input less than 50pF. If you're talking about just the cable from the table to the preamp then yes.

Yes - I had to get my phono stage custom made - and I had to make my own cables to get the capacitance down to 60pf total - another method which works with some brands - is to find a cartridge body with a lower Inductance - the lowests inductances in the Shure family were the V15V's - and the same needles are available from Jico for that family....

 

[Morty4Snerd]

Hi everybody!

I also bought the Shure M95edm from the seller in Argentina. These are indeed NOS and are purported to be made in the USA, not Mexico - the "M" designation, I believe, designates that the cartridge was not offered for retail sale but pre-mounted as part of a turntable package.

I got it and it is in fact NOS. Really liked it when mounted on my VPI HW-19 MK III, SME 3009 improved S2 rig. Nice, smooth and warm. I really think folks considering JICO etc. aftermarket styli look into this NOS cart/stylus which is cheaper than the JICO alone.

I have since picked up a NOS Shure HE stylus for the cartridge at considerable expense - and to me, despite stylus profile, the HE did not really improve on the sound of the ED (which by the way is consistent with some of the reviews in audio mags from the time the M95HE stylus was introduced). I also picked up a 14 buck EVG stylus which I used for my lesser condition LPs - sound was surprisingly good but the shank of the stylus was too tight when inserting into cartridge body, had to insert with more force than I'd like. But the sound was still surprisingly good.

Funny thing though - after months playing around with this cartridge I got, to be honest, a little bored with it. It definitely has the highs rolled off - you don't get the top end sparkle or "attack." That's the Shure house sound and similar to my experience years ago when my buddy loaned me his V15vmr to use on a different deck.

So I took advantage of my removeable headshell and installed a NOS Ortofon VMS20eMKii that I had around. Big difference in "attack," immediately evident from the first guitar notes on Creedence's "Green River." Wow.

Is the Ortofon less accurate than the Shure? I don't know. But I know I'm having more fun, at least for now, with the Ortofon than I had with the Shure.

Looking forward to installing my other high compliance NOS carts in my stable as well - a Sonus Blue Gold, and my venerable Pickering XSV3000. Definitely different sounding cartridges to the Shure.

 

[Crab33]

I have run them with the Jico SAS stylus - assuming correct adjusting of loading - there are no sibilance issued.

I have also experimented with the Jico standard replacement needles - you cannot assume the original voicing is applicable - it needs to be adjusted for the Jico needle - if properly adjusted, sibilance is not an issue.

1) tracking force likely to need a bit more than the original,
2) Jico damping brushes do have an impact, but the absence of the damping grease in the hinge means it is far less than the original, and the compensating force adjustment is lower than the original too...
3) due to reduced impact of the damping brush, they are more sensitive to arm mass missmatches - they like low mass arms, can live with low-mid, are likely to suffer with Mid mass and up
4) correct loading is tricky without measuring.... it ain't the original

Note: the body is the same as the M97 as well so there is lots of flexibility in terms of available styli - the loading also differs when switching to those styli

Your response to my post does not seem to fully fit, as I was talking about the M95ED which doesn't have a damping brush (the later M95ED/D did, but that is rare). Are you suggesting that people use an N97 stylus with damping brush on the M95 body? Or was this just a general comment about Jico styli?

I understand your point about reconsidering the loading when using an aftermarket stylus but, unlike me, most people don't have a phono pre-amp with adjustable capacitance and I doubt that many people would go to the trouble of optimising the loading with a basic aftermarket stylus.

 

[Crab33]

Hi everybody!

I also bought the Shure M95edm from the seller in Argentina. These are indeed NOS and are purported to be made in the USA, not Mexico - the "M" designation, I believe, designates that the cartridge was not offered for retail sale but pre-mounted as part of a turntable package.

I got it and it is in fact NOS. Really liked it when mounted on my VPI HW-19 MK III, SME 3009 improved S2 rig. Nice, smooth and warm. I really think folks considering JICO etc. aftermarket styli look into this NOS cart/stylus which is cheaper than the JICO alone.

I have since picked up a NOS Shure HE stylus for the cartridge at considerable expense - and to me, despite stylus profile, the HE did not really improve on the sound of the ED (which by the way is consistent with some of the reviews in audio mags from the time the M95HE stylus was introduced). I also picked up a 14 buck EVG stylus which I used for my lesser condition LPs - sound was surprisingly good but the shank of the stylus was too tight when inserting into cartridge body, had to insert with more force than I'd like. But the sound was still surprisingly good.

Funny thing though - after months playing around with this cartridge I got, to be honest, a little bored with it. It definitely has the highs rolled off - you don't get the top end sparkle or "attack." That's the Shure house sound and similar to my experience years ago when my buddy loaned me his V15vmr to use on a different deck.

So I took advantage of my removeable headshell and installed a NOS Ortofon VMS20eMKii that I had around. Big difference in "attack," immediately evident from the first guitar notes on Creedence's "Green River." Wow.

Is the Ortofon less accurate than the Shure? I don't know. But I know I'm having more fun, at least for now, with the Ortofon than I had with the Shure.

Looking forward to installing my other high compliance NOS carts in my stable as well - a Sonus Blue Gold, and my venerable Pickering XSV3000. Definitely different sounding cartridges to the Shure.

You make an interesting point about the original Shure N95HE stylus. I have one and it has impressed me less than the N95ED stylus. Dynamics are a bit more subdued and the balance is a little warmer with less explicit presentation of mid-range and high-frequency detail. However, I initially used it on a medium-mass arm and when I later used it on a low-mass arm, the sound was more open and the detail more evident - it was a more refined sound than the N95ED but still not quite as entertaining.

I don't know about rolled-off but the highs of the M95ED are a little soft, as with most Shure cartridges - I think this is part of its attraction for me, making it easy to live with.

I have played around quite a lot with the Ortofon VMS20E MkII over the years and in my experience it has less attack and is less entertaining than the M95ED. Unlike most Ortofon cartridges, I find it a bit of a softy - it is mellower than most of their models. Even the F15E MkII, which was lower in the VMS/F/FF range, has more bite. I prefer their later equivalent models with nude elliptical styli - 520 MkII, OM20 and 2M Blue.

 

[SterlingOne]

You make an interesting point about the original Shure N95HE stylus. I have one and it has impressed me less than the N95ED stylus. Dynamics are a bit more subdued and the balance is a little warmer with less explicit presentation of mid-range and high-frequency detail. However, I initially used it on a medium-mass arm and when I later used it on a low-mass arm, the sound was more open and the detail more evident - it was a more refined sound than the N95ED but still not quite as entertaining.

I don't know about rolled-off but the highs of the M95ED are a little soft, as with most Shure cartridges - I think this is part of its attraction for me, making it easy to live with.

I have played around quite a lot with the Ortofon VMS20E MkII over the years and in my experience it has less attack and is less entertaining than the M95ED. Unlike most Ortofon cartridges, I find it a bit of a softy - it is mellower than most of their models. Even the F15E MkII, which was lower in the VMS/F/FF range, has more bite. I prefer their later equivalent models with nude elliptical styli - 520 MkII, OM20 and 2M Blue.

The rolled off highs on my M97xE makes listening to cello arrangements just right. My other carts are too crispy on the highs.

 

[Blackdog61]

The rolled off highs on my M97xE makes listening to cello arrangements just right. My other carts are too crispy on the highs.

Are you using SS amps? I’m using tubes so that might account for the difference in preference. System matching is so important.

 

[Redd House]

OK - So, bottom line, what's the best replacement stylus for the M95ED?

Tonar? Jico? EVG? Some other source?

I've got an M95ED body with no stylus that I'd really love to activate, especially after reading all of the enthusiasm on this thread. Hoping to avoid sibilant brightness, tho.

I would imagine the best would be a JICO SAS. I actually have one but still haven't auditioned it. It'll be interesting to see how it compares to my original low hours HE stylus. Took like 6 months to get it from JICO in Japan because I ordered it before they were gearing up to produce them for the M95.

 

[SterlingOne]

Are you using SS amps? I’m using tubes so that might account for the difference in preference. System matching is so important.

I am using SS amps: Sony TA-N9000ES and TA-N80ES. Amps are not at issue. In comparison of music from vinyl to music from SACDs of same recordings the SACDs are not bright. Just a few carts are at issue the worst of those is an A-T VM540ML when playing cello music, like Classic Hauser. Best cart I have for that sort of music is a Shure V15 Type III/JICO SAS-B, but the Shure M97xE is enjoyed because it emphasizes low bass on recordings which have organ as well as cello.

 

[Blackdog61]

I have a Grado Platinum which was retipped by Joseph about two years ago and it probably has about 500 hours on it. For a .2 x .7 nude rock that doesn’t sound like a lot of wear. For whatever reason, it likes about 2 g of added mass on the headshell so today I mounted it on a headshell which weighs about 9g and carefully set it up to be as close as I remember it regarding VTA, Azimuth, etc. Well, I prefer the M95ED by a good bit. The Grado is lush and full in the lower mids and bass, but it lacks dynamics. I sense that the Shure actually goes a bit deeper and it’s very clear in that region. The mids pop out in a natural way. Highs on the Grado are very detailed, but slightly dry. The Shure just sounds more like the real thing.

 

[Blackdog61]

I think I would hesitate to add that compound between a head shell and cartridge. In fact, I went down such a rabbit hole with Shure and AT cartridges several years ago and any gains I found were questionable at best. I started by experimenting with wood head shells and potting cartridges and the only thing gained there, really, was an easier mounting wherein I could screw directly into the wood cartridge body. I thought the sound was better, but was it really?

Then I broke one of the little aluminum mounting 'ears' off of a Shure m97xe. Those little guys are brittle! I decided to mount it into a pretty paradox pulse universal aluminum cartridge body. I ended up with a cartridge that is high compliance but weighs a portly 11.5 grams with stylus. I can barely mount it on a Rega arm with standard counterweight and I can't get past the compliance bit when I play it at all of 1.25 gram on an aftermarket HE stylus with brush down. So, in the end, all of that and a cartridge I almost never use anymore. In hindsight I should have used less epoxy, or even just a couple of dabs of something like super glue, to mount the cart in the body. That might have made it a much more reasonable weight. Stupid me, but the point is that the DIY work can lead to such outcomes unless great care is taken.

The manufacturers, especially Shure, tested these cartridges with the little cheap plastic bodies they sold them in, so I generally accept that they will perform as expected even though the little plastic mounts can sometimes seem crappy. As an aside, I also found that when I sold a couple of Shure sc35c cartridges that had been rebodied into paradox pulse bodies, there was limited interest. Hobbyists want genuine stock items, so there's that.

My take away has been that I will reserve remounting of cartridges for ones that I really love but where the mount has fallen apart, and then only with caution so as not to change the essential character of the thing. Adding the coupling putty you could create a mess, or who knows what? If the sound is good I'd probably focus my energy on something else.

Couldn’t help myself. I had some 8oz leather which is about 1/8” thick and cut a shim to be slightly thinner to allow for the finger lift. After thoroughly wetting it to make it pliable, I mounted it and could see it conforming to the headshell mesh. Not sure if it’s better, but my OCD is at bay and I’m thoroughly enjoying the music.

 

[dlaloum]

Ignore the red line - it was done using digital EQ...

Look at the difference achieved by varying capacitance and resistance loading (blue and green)

Stylus used was the N97xHE-SAS from Jico.

The blue line basically exposes the mechanical resonance of the SAS cantilever - the green line shows what it looks like with electrical resonance used to boost the mid-highs - resulting in a very nice f/r (within +/- 1db) - but also, as a consequence, resulting in a steep rolloff after circa 14khz

The red line shows what is possible when using digital EQ rather than electrical EQ - extension out to 20khz within +1/-2 db - yes, I know, anathema to the analogue cultists.... - but as things stand today, 40 years into the age of digital, we should be developing proper hybrid phono stages!