advertisement


Microlinear vs Shibata vs Special Line Contact Stylus’

I've been listening to MCs exclusively, since I first moved from a run-of-the-mill MM to the (then) brand-new AUDIO-TECHNICA AT32E II.

s-l1600.jpg


It was many decades ago, but brother, was it a revelation!

Because we now have plenty of high-quality Gain and Loading options, I've never even considered moving back to a MM.

But if there are one or two MM carts that can match or better the DENON DL MC carts (there are a few favourites) on a medium-to-heavy tonearm - for similar or less money - I'd really like to know about it!
 
I have both and prefer the
The 740ML is not better than the 750SL , I have had both ( still use the 750SH ) and there is no difference in tracking or end of side distortion . They have a slightly different presentaion though , to my ears the ML is leaner whereas the SH has a fuller midrange .
I also found the SH more forgiving of worn records .

They are just different takes on the same cart , just pick your prefered flavour .
This. I have both and prefer the 740 over the 750.
 
I’m currently trying out various MMs to find out if there’s one I can live with long term. This is after knocking the tip off my Koetsu Rosewood.

I’ve spent 2+ months with a RigB’d AT540ML and have listened to more in that time than the previous year. Partly because I’ve decided to listen to more music but also because it sounds so good. The ML stylus is silent in the grove and that music retrieval is excellent. Some records which I know well sounded like new recordings (in a good way).

I’ve just moved on to a Goldring 1042 which I fitted yesterday. It’s awkward to fit and align but I got there in the end. I like the way it sounds but it’s picking up more noise from the records than I have got used to and I’m finding it irritatingly distracting. The ML tip was virtually silent.

I’d like to try a wooden bodies ATVM95ML just to see if how it compares to the 540ML and then I’ll try an ESCO re-tipped Dynavector XX mk1 before going back to the ESCO re-tipped Koetsu.

So, far I’ve found the 540ML very compelling.
 
to my ears the ML is leaner whereas the SH has a fuller midrange .
I also found the SH more forgiving of worn records .

They are just different takes on the same cart , just pick your prefered flavour .

Thats my experience as well.
Sometime ML can be a touch too lean while that never happen for SH
 
Talk of "lesser arms" seems to avoid the point that side by side on the same arm, and ceteris paribus, a good MC will sound better than a good MM. The gaps between good MMs and cheap MCs have certainly narrowed or arguably vanished in the critical £3-600 area, but the idea fashionable on PFM at the moment that MMs are "better" should be taken with a kilo or so of salt.

You need to widen it further IMHO and view the vinyl-playing front end right through to the phono stage as a whole. That involves some actual subject/technology grasp and is certainly way more than looking at price tags and reading sales pitches, vacuous industry reviews etc. The best of any technology is capable of superb results and the respected classics tend to be respected classics for very good reason IMO. I also understand the tools needed to really crack a typical MM, MC, Decca or whatever are all very different with regard to mass, compliance, resonance, capacitance, loading etc. You can’t just compare cart A to cart B without viewing the complete vinyl replay system, and arguably doing some maths too.

I’ve been up the MC ladder to a fairly high level (Lyra Lydian B, Dynavector XX1L etc) and I’ve spent a lot of time listening to far more expensive that that (Koetsus etc), yet if you asked me what is the best cartridge I have ever heard I’d almost certainly say a Decca SC4E. Certainly not the best all rounder, and I’m far from convinced I could live with one given how wide my musical taste, but when they work they are just astonishing. Nothing has the dynamic impact and life of a good Decca, and the SC4E is the best of them.

PS I’ve ended up with a very good MM for a variety of technical reasons that I’ve covered on other threads (it tracks anything I throw at it, suits the vastly superior sounding iron platter on the TD-124, works great with my valve phono stage), and most importantly it just gets out of the way and never draws attention to itself. The whole vinyl front end just does what I want without irritation to the extent that I’m already on my second stylus and I already have a new one boxed up for the future. I have never done that with a cart before in my life!
 
Only moved it on for a Koetsu Vermilion (now an RSP).

Snap, but mine's been in a drawer for 5+ years. Keep thinking about removing the Proteus from the 12" PU7 and sticking it on the 12" Ace anna. The K is so much better in the gimballed arm. Trouble is, My eyesight and I are getting much older and I now view high-end cart. changing with trepidation, even though I have a Dr. F alignment gizmo.

People get this idea that MC carts are inherently better but it's nonsense. A good MM is a top arm will comfortably beat a MC in a lesser arm

Maybe, within a price band, but the ceiling for a MM is around the grand mark (maybe exceptions) whereas MCs go to well beyond 10 grand. Now I would hazard a guess that MMs cannot get that much better because of their detachable stylus assembly or design or both, whereas MCs have little upper quality limit, Ergo, the quality potential for MCs is in a different league. Pure conjecture, of course, but logical, I think.;).

It's not as difficult or intricate as you fear, and it's nice to be able to do it yourself.

Absolutely, Tim, but you do need steady hands, fair eyesight and confidence, quite apart from the alignment aids. Overhang, i.m.o., is key even on 12" arms; more so on shorter ones, I feel.
 
It's not as difficult or intricate as you fear, and it's nice to be able to do it yourself. You just need a decent alignment protractor, a straight edge if you're doing VTA, and perhaps some awareness of different geometries (Baerwald, Stevenson, etc). My protractor has the charm of being ex-Derek Jenkins.

Yes - I do feel that I would like to do this myself. In reality, I will probably be changing my cartridge every two to three years so I would effectively be (re-)learning from scratch each time I changed the cartridge. I will watch the dealer change the cartridges out to see if I can pick up the jist of it for next time.

Notwithstanding, no dealer would lend me three or four cartridges to try out at home for me to return the ones I don't like - I would guess?

Also, I will be listening to an LP12 that has the Kore and Lingo 4 against my LP12 with the Majic subchassis and lingo 3 to see if the difference in sound is worth the upgrade.
 
Yes - I do feel that I would like to do this myself. In reality, I will probably be changing my cartridge every two to three years

I'm sure step by step destructions will be offered here in this event; even better from someone familiar with your arm/cart.
 
I take it that the Shibata is at the bottom of the totem pole, but the AT-Art9 has a SLC & Shibata version. According to reviews, the Shibata is the preferred one. I bring this up because I am interested in this cartridge and am thinking of getting one in Japan while I am there this summer. So I have a vested interest in this topic.
 
I take it that the Shibata is at the bottom of the totem pole, but the AT-Art9 has a SLC & Shibata version. According to reviews, the Shibata is the preferred one. I bring this up because I am interested in this cartridge and am thinking of getting one in Japan while I am there this summer. So I have a vested interest in this topic.

I’d not make any firm assumption on the rankings of specific shapes. Think of them more as trade-names. Also certainly don’t assume all of a specific genre are identical or even that similar beyond a basic trade-marked concept, e.g. I bet the AT Art9 has a noticeably different Shibata tip to say a 1970s Stanton D681EEE. IIRC the Shibata tip was actually developed for SQ4 quadraphonic vinyl, the tip being capable (on an appropriately high compliance cart) to trace the ultrasonic channel encoding. How any of this relates to today is up for grabs and I’d expect the tip to have evolved to modern usage, especially given how different a low-compliance MC cart is to that tip’s original usage context.

I’d really not get too hung up on it beyond researching what Art9 is considered to be the best by most users. As an example it appears a majority of people seem to prefer the Ortofon 2M Bronze (micro-line) to the Black (Shibata). I’d view that entirely as a subjective appraisal of the Ortofon 2M range and not extrapolate it out as a verdict on tip-profile as say the aforementioned Stanton D681EEE sounds totally unlike a 2M Black.
 
I have both the AT440MLB and ATVM95SH

In my system the SH provides a fuller richer midrange and more heft in the bass.
The ML by comparison seems a little more extended at the higher frequencies.
Out of the two I prefer the SH in my system.
 
Is there any difference between what some call a ML and others a Line Contact/Micro Ridge?

Not beyond real pedantry/marketing as far as I can tell. They all achieve the same aim via slightly different means and I’d describe them all as ‘line contact’ including Shibata and Geiger. If you google them you’ll find all manner of pictures, which are fascinating and beautiful, but they all aim to achieve a deep long vertical contact area with the groove over a very short (front/back) length. There is some amazing precision engineering creating such things, though as I understand it most styli are made by Nagaoka these days. AT and Ortofon may possibly still make tips too, I don’t know, but I very much doubt anyone else still has the skillset. It is certainly a vastly smaller market than it was.
 
But THIS... "I reckon I prefer MM."

I think I would need to qualify that statement by saying that to prefer them doesn't necessarily mean they are in all respects better?

The OC9XSL is a 'better' cartridge than the Exact by most measures. It is more detailed, has better separation, bass is cleaner and tighter and top end is clearer and cleaner. It's the better cartridge, right? Yet with the two turntables sitting next to each other it's the Exact I choose to play more often. Why?

At lower volume, which constitutes most of my listening, those last ounces of resolution matter much less. The more punchy, solid sound of MM cuts through better and at any volume, the fuller tonality of the Exact is more realistic. Bass guitar sounds more like a bass guitar, a voice sounds more like a real person. It feels closer to listening to real people and the connection to the music is deeper.

But that's just the Exact, which I do think is a special cartridge. Not all MM carts sound like that but when I think back to the times I've enjoyed my records the most and been playing a lot of vinyl, it's MM carts I've been using at the time. Yes, MC carts are better in Hi-Fi terms, I'm not arguing about that. I'm questioning what that extra detail actually gives you in terms of musical satisfaction? Are there downsides? I think there are.

I've not tried a Denon 103R. I've had a couple of vanila 103s and I've tried/heard the 110. I'd take the Exact over either of them. I've tried the Exact back to back against the 110 and the Rega is just plain better. It's years since I used 103s but I used them in an Ittok and Rega arms for a good few years. I know the cart well and liked it a lot but it didn't have the same 'play another record' jive as the Exact.
 
I believe one major reason for AT SH and ML being significantly cheaper than the SLC is that they make the former two and have to buy in the latter.
 
Recently I've been really enjoying the 540ML. I liked the thicker midrange of a 95SH but not enough to favour it over the 540ML and I have 5-way active speakers and amps with gain controls so I can adjust tonal balance to taste, albeit crudely. I also have a 2M Black, and several Shure M97xE with a JICO SAS.

I have some MC cartridges which don't get much use: an OC9 II ML with an ESCO retip, a tired ART9 and now a tired Ortofon A90. Each has more refinement in the higher frequencies than my 540MLs, but for some reason I seem to prefer the energy, presence and punch of the 540s. Maybe it comes down to loading inaccuracy and other factors, but I do think the 540ML is a lot of music for the money. Add to that the 1000 hour life, ease of stylus replacement, and compatibility with the wide range of diamond and cantilever choices and you really can't go wrong.

I recall that the high frequency refinement of good MC cartridges mattered more to me when I was younger, perhaps because I can now only hear up to about 13kHz.

I think one should not assume that a two grand MC gives more pleasure than a 540ML just because it costs ten-fold. I suspect it's wiser to investigate spending that two grand on turntable, arm or phono stage than on a fancy MC with a diamond polished by vestal virgins.

Listening in your own system is everything.
 
One more point: small changes in azimuth can make a difference, and I wonder to what extent the wear on a diamond can correct for such discrepancies. People often report the settling-in of cartridges and it is often assumed that this is due to changes in the suspension with use. However, it seems to me that cartridge suspensions are designed to be as invariant over time as possible, whereas a degree or two of azimuth error may be unavoidable when you consider manufacturing tolerances in cartridges and arms. Is it possible that the improvements of running in are the result of the line contact surface wearing unevenly and thereby compensating for any installed azimuth inaccuracy? When you consider the easily perceptible effect of different diamond profiles, an improving effect of wear seems plausible to me.

If there is anything in these conjectures, the ML profile has a significant advantage in that its small radius is not increased by uneven wear arising from azimuth error, at least for many hundreds of hours. The ML's biggest advantage may be the consistency of its profile over its working life.
 


advertisement


Back
Top