Well I've got my first TT, an SL-BD25 up and running w/ an AT92ECD cartridge. I am enjoying my vinyl experience far, far, FAR more than I had anticipated.:music::thmbsp::banana:

I'd like to upgrade the cartridge and I see LP gear has this this hyperelliptical (http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=ATN3472HE) and then as an 'upgrade' they offer this Shibata (http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=ATN3472LC)

I'm still learning about the differences between elliptical, hyper, shibata, line contact, etc. and it sounds like I would definitely be doing myself a favor to move up from the elliptical I have - but isn't hyperelliptical the same as shibata? Is the shibata worth the extra dough?

Shibata was developed back in the early 70's for use with Quad systems utilizing CD-4 technology. The unique profile of the diamond cut allows frequencies well up into the 50Khz range...which was needed for CD-4--they used a carrier signal up in the high 40's, if memory serves, to carry channels 3 and 4, which was then decoded by the preamp.

Along with great, wide response, it also behaves like a microline stylus...it rides lower in the grooves, so thrift records presumeably played on something else all their life will sound better, and has a wider contact surface.

At least some of the time, the terms are used interchangeably:
http://www.sowka.pl/szlif/

Post #8 in this thread may also shed some light:
http://www.diamondcut.com/vforum/showthread.php?t=1579

Some places say that "MicroLine" is just Shure's name for a Shibata stylus. All the marketers and their attempts to differentiate their products with new and different names have sure made things a bit more confusing for the consumer!

It would be interesting to know how LP Gear explains the difference. It might be a real difference, or it might reflect something like the difference in currency exchange rates or labor rates between different countries of origin (?). Have you tried emailing them for an explanation?

... but isn't hyperelliptical the same as shibata? Is the shibata worth the extra dough?

I'm not a 100% sure but I think they are essentially the same shape. Both narrower than the regular elliptical. I have an Audio Technica AT-15Sa Shibata type stylus and have been pretty happy. I initally got it for Quad LPs, but since have been using it for everything. At first it seem "bright" but once I got it set up correctly, the brightness was that I was hearing more definition. It sits lower in the groove with increased contact, picks up more info and also reduces wear.

I think it's definitely worth it, if you like vinyl.

So is that Wushu.. Liu?

IIRC, the AT Shibata had kind of an S curve in the edge of the diamond and all others were somewhat more or less a section of an ellipse. Conical uses a round shank with a small piece of diamond bonded to the tip, ground to a cone. Standard elliptical is the same at the beginning and they grind an ellipse on the front and back, which makes a narrow edge that goes deeper into the groove. Hyper-elliptical and Shibata use a one piece square diamond shank (called a 'nude' shank), turn it so the corners are oriented inline with the groove and The typical AT higher-end styli had .02mm x .07mm radii (edge and front/back, respectively). Both will sound very good but unless you can compare them at one time, it's not going to be a drastic difference.

Hyper-elliptical, etc:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vinylrecords-andmore.com/sites/jonbrox/_files/Image/hyperelliptical%25201_5,%252072.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.vinylrecords-andmore.com/thestylus.php&h=148&w=108&sz=36&tbnid=uIrihLFk9OcejM::&tbnh=95&tbnw=69&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAT%2BHyper-elliptical%2Bdiamond%2Bphoto&usg=__xAqyLRL276z5E9b43YU2pzJ9vJU=&ei=9MKQSefgEJi2MabkpYUM&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1

Shibata:
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl_two.html

I'm still learning about the differences between elliptical, hyper, shibata, line contact, etc. and it sounds like I would definitely be doing myself a favor to move up from the elliptical I have - but isn't hyperelliptical the same as shibata? Is the shibata worth the extra dough?

Yes, you are right - hyper-elliptical is actually Shure's name for the extended line contact stylus. It probably means that it has a "hyper" contact with the groove, compared to the the contact patch of an elliptical. Like all other line contact stylii (stereohedron, Van den Hul, Pramanik etc), it is a similar shape to the original Shibata stylus, which was introduced by JVC for CD-4 quadaphonic playback, to reproduce the high frequencies up to 50kHz necessary for CD-4. Essentially all extended line contact stylii are thin from front to back, and have an extended vertical contact with the record groove, compared to elliptical or conical stylii. They are quite similar, but it may be that the Shibata stylii which LPGear sell are slightly thinner from front to back than the hyper-elliptical stylii, and so are better at tracing high frequencies.

Some places say that "MicroLine" is just Shure's name for a Shibata stylus. All the marketers and their attempts to differentiate their products with new and different names have sure made things a bit more confusing for the consumer!


Yes, it is confusing, isn't it? I can tell that you're confused, because the name "Microline" has never been used by Shure!:D It's actually Audio Technica that has the microline stylus, as used in the AT-440MLa and other cartridges.:thmbsp: Shure did have one which was practically identical, which they called Microridge (MR), which is probably a better name for it than either microline, or Super Audio Stylus, which is Jico's name for their version of it. Shure used it for their V15 Type V, to replace the original hyperelliptical tip that it was first released with, and later as a replacement stylus for the V15 Type III and IV. Other companies, such as Grace, also used the microridge shape. The microridge/microline/SAS stylus shape is a line contact stylus, but with a very thin ridge around the edge, where it contacts the record groove. That enables a very thin front to back thickness - according to Jico, the SAS ridge is thinner than a razor blade - but because the rest of the stylus isn't as thin as the ridge, it keeps the front to back strength, so that the stylus doesn't flex or bend. The thin profile of the ridge enables the stylus to track difficult high frequencies better. See http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=SHVN35HESAS .

Conical uses a round shank with a small piece of diamond bonded to the tip, ground to a cone.


Actually, a conical stylus doesn't have to have a bonded tip. Many did, because it's cheaper than making the whole thing from diamond, but it's entirely possible to have a nude conical stylus! Before later stylus tips such as elliptical were introduced, some higher end cartridges may have had nude conical stylii, simply because they are lighter than bonded stylii.

-Don

Yes, you are right - hyper-elliptical is actually Shure's name for the extended line contact stylus. It probably means that it has a "hyper" contact with the groove, compared to the the contact patch of an elliptical. Like all other line contact stylii (stereohedron, Van den Hul, Pramanik etc), it is a similar shape to the original Shibata stylus, which was introduced by JVC for CD-4 quadaphonic playback, to reproduce the high frequencies up to 50kHz necessary for CD-4. Essentially all extended line contact stylii are thin from front to back, and have an extended vertical contact with the record groove, compared to elliptical or conical stylii.



Yes, it is confusing, isn't it? I can tell that you're confused, because the name "Microline" has never been used by Shure!:D It's actually Audio Technica that has the microline stylus, as used in the AT-440MLa and other cartridges.:thmbsp: Shure did have one which was practically identical, which they called Microridge (MR), which is probably a better name for it than either microline, or Super Audio Stylus, which is Jico's name for their version of it. Shure used it for their V15 Type V, to replace the original hyperelliptical tip that was first released with, and later as a replacement stylus for the V15 Type III and IV. Other companies, such as Grace, also used the microridge shape. The microridge/microline/SAS stylus shape is a line contact stylus, but with a very thin ridge around the edge, where it contacts the record groove. That enables a very thin front to back thickness, but because the rest of the stylus isn't as thin as the ridge, it keeps the front to back strength, so that the stylus doesn't flex or bend. The thin profile of the ridge enables the stylus to track difficult high frequencies better. See http://www.lpgear.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LG&Product_Code=SHVN35HESAS .

-Don

hrm. Interesting that they should use two different terms for the same type of stytus within the same upgrade path...

Also, the shibata is listed as a direct replacement for the AT331LP, whereas the HE is simply listed as being compatible. I'm guessing that the HE is just an LP Gear stylus made to bridge the gap between the 316 and the AT331?

Ach, too many choices for a newbie. Glad I picked the P-mount; if I had to choose from standard cartridges my head would explode:yikes:

This may be hearsay, but I recall being told that the better AT stylii for moving magnet cartridges are made at the same plant that the Shure ones were and that the AT stylii are mounted more predictably into the cantilever. The, admittedly rumorous, comment that I heard was that in the later days of the Shure V15 manufacture that discerning professionals who set up turntable would view each stylus to make sure it was mounted correctly.
That aside taken care of, here's a link to a company I am not affiliated with and have not purchased from, but who preface their offerings with an excellent description of both stylus shapes and record groove behavior. Of course, they have vinyl ribbons to grind, but hopefully the editors on this site will take this as an honest effort to contribute to this discussion.
http://www.turntablebasics.com/cartridges.html
Don

here's B&O's blurb on the first contact line stylus (I have the MMC20CL).

MMC6000
Manfactured: 1974 - 1979
Designer: Subir Pramanik

The MMC principle was adapted to track 4-channel records: both Quadradiscs and SQ. MMC 6000 would track both mono and stereo records with the utmost fidelity. It was designed for record-players with tangential arms. The stylus was the Pramanik diamond, named after its inventor: engineer S K Pramanik from Bang & Olufsen's Laboratories.

The diamond's radii were 7 um/2 x 50 um. It was a refinement of the elliptical shape, rather like the shape of the cutter-head, and enabled greater contact with the undulations of the record groove. The cantilever was made of berylium - a material which is harder yet lighter than popularly-used aluminium. Effective tip mass was 0.22 mg. Compliance was higher than 30x10-6 cm/dyne. Recommended- stylus pressure was 1g. The total frequency range was 20-45.000 Hz.

In the audible range: 20-15.000 Hz there is less than 1.5 dB variation and in the inaudible range 20,000-45,000 Hz where the carrier frequencies lie, the pick-up fulfils RCA/JVC's specifications for a Class A discrete 4-channel pick-up cartridge. Each cartridge is an integrated, individually calibrated unit. The stylus unit is not separately replaceable since it is part of the integrated unit. An individual frequency response curve traced on a Bruel & Kjaer level recorder and a complete Calibration Card were enclosed with every MMC 6000 sold.

MMC6000 Product Specifications
Pramanik diamond
Radius of curvature CD-4 quadro
Frequency range 20 - 15000 Hz+/- 1,5dB 20 - 45000 Hz (CD4)
Channel separation 1000Hz >25dB
40 - 10000Hz >20dB
Channel difference <1,5dB
Intermodulation <1%
Recommended stylus pressure 1g
Compliance 30 x 10(-6)cm/dyne
Effective tip mass 0,22mg
Output mV/cm/sec. 0,6mV/47kOhms

here's B&O's blurb on the first contact line stylus (I have the MMC20CL).

[INDENT]MMC6000
Manfactured: 1974 - 1979
Designer: Subir Pramanik


Thanks, PM. While the Pramanik is probably one of the earliest line contact stylii, whether it was earlier than the Shibata stylus is unclear - the patent on the Shibata was applied for in March 1972, and CD-4 was introduced in 1971. I'd also expect that JVC would have produced the earliest ones, for their CD-4 system, along with setting the requirement for the 45kHz frequency response, to carry the encoded rear channels. Certainly the Shibata stylus was designed for JVC, as a better shape for CD-4 playback.

This may be hearsay, but I recall being told that the better AT stylii for moving magnet cartridges are made at the same plant that the Shure ones were and that the AT stylii are mounted more predictably into the cantilever. The, admittedly rumorous, comment that I heard was that in the later days of the Shure V15 manufacture that discerning professionals who set up turntable would view each stylus to make sure it was mounted correctly.
That aside taken care of, here's a link to a company I am not affiliated with and have not purchased from, but who preface their offerings with an excellent description of both stylus shapes and record groove behavior. Of course, they have vinyl ribbons to grind, but hopefully the editors on this site will take this as an honest effort to contribute to this discussion.
http://www.turntablebasics.com/cartridges.html
Don

I've seen the same rumours that those shapes (Shure microridge, AT microline) were from the same Japanese factory, Don. I also seem to remember a magazine hi-fi review that I read on the web, that later (read: Mexican) versions of the V15 and M97 were a bit hit and miss for stylus alignment compared to the USA models. Probably written by an American, though.... The reviews from Mexico are probably very complimentary!:D As an owner of one of the original V15 Type V's, I'm certain that it would be better than the V15VxMR.:yes::thmbsp: Shure even admit that the earlier version was more accurate, with a flatter frequency response, because they tried to make the sound of the later version warmer and less clinical.

The pictures of the stylus shapes on the Turntablebasics site is certainly interesting, and so is the picture showing the reduced stress on the record of the microline versus the elliptical. While it's undoubtedly correct, you can see that they obviously expect you to shell out the extra money to them for the AT-440 - after all, you'll be doing your records a big favour.:bigok:

-Don

The precision facets and long length make the HE almost hypnotic. The 15Sa is truly a miniature jewel. But I don’t understand how JICO HE gets the Hyper-Elliptical status out a conical shape. I suppose the pros know.