Shure Pro-4 cartridge or ?

Wondering whether I should seek a new stylus for my 1980s Pro-4 cartridge or replace with a modern cartridge. The setup has seen a lot of miles and I think that it may be time.

If I get a new stylus, how can I ensure that I do not get a counterfeit?

If i replace it, what would be comparable among todays offerings?

Table is a Realistic Lab-420, through a Yamaha RX-v863 and DCM TF-500 or EPI 100 speakers.

Opinions appreciated. Thanks

It is basically the same as the current M92e so if you want that level of performance then that stylus would be fine. You can go up a bit by installing the M97xE stylus on it or there are aftermarket companies making hyper-elliptical and shibata and micro-ridge type styli for it. These are arguably much better than the original so it all comes down to what your budget can cope with.

Regards.

tubewade said:

It is basically the same as the current M92e so if you want that level of performance then that stylus would be fine. You can go up a bit by installing the M97xE stylus on it or there are aftermarket companies making hyper-elliptical and shibata and micro-ridge type styli for it. These are arguably much better than the original so it all comes down to what your budget can cope with

Click to expand...

Thanks Tubewade. Very useful information.

Interesting that the M92e sells today for less than I paid for the Pro-4 in 1986

I am wondering now if the M95e cartridge I have and am not using may be better then the Pro-4. Also thinking about a new Audio Technica AT95E.

The M95 body is the same and the coils are similar if not the same. There were a few different styli for the M95 body and some were very good. The N95ED is a nude .2 x .7 elliptical capable of very good tracking if it is in good condition (not worn out). The original one would be a yellow grip and say 'Shure' on the grip. You could even use his stylus on the Pro4 to try it out but if I were doing it long term I would take the opportunity to get rid of that P-mount adapter by installing the M95 cartridge.

The AT95e with original stylus is probably on par with the Pro4. It may have a little better cantilever and will probably present a little brighter.

Ditto everything tubewade said. Since your turntable isn't one that accepts p-mount cartridges natively, you can do your styli a favor by reducing some of the mass at the end of the arm, namely, lose the adapter and go with the M95 cartridge. Let us know what your budget is and we'll steer you around the pitfalls.

wualta said:

Ditto everything tubewade said. Since your turntable isn't one that accepts p-mount cartridges natively, you can do your styli a favor by reducing some of the mass at the end of the arm, namely, lose the adapter and go with the M95 cartridge. Let us know what your budget is and we'll steer you around the pitfalls.

Click to expand...

Thanks Wualta (and tubewade).

Sounds like the M95 may be the way to go if the stylus is OK. I am not certain how to check the stylus condition.

As to budget: I am, well . . . cheap. Don't want to spend more than $100 on a cartridge and would be happier with half of that.

Evaluating stylus condition takes proper viewing equipment and also takes a little time to learn what to look for. Not to say that I wouldn't recommend learning to do it. I would. But at this point I would think about a new stylus.

At your budget you can split the difference and get a hyper-elliptical for $80 from LP Gear. http://www.lpgear.com/product/SHN095HEL.html .

If that seems really too much there is a Jico elliptical that is marketed as an EVG that is quite nice for about $15. These are on eBay. Make sure it is an EVG branded and not a Pfanstiehl.

Unfortunately, the supply of genuine Shure N95ED tips has been depleted and you aren't likely to find any, at least not at a reasonable price.

Again, ditto tubewade. You can determine on a real-world basis whether a stylus still has it, or has had it, and that is to play a record with a known-playable passage of vocals with prominent S sounds, preferably mastered during the '80s when cutting gear was improving to the point that it became possible to engrave high-level sibilant sounds without having to limit or "de-ess" them. I keep a couple of these records handy for go/no-go decisions on used styli I come across.

wualta said:

Again, ditto tubewade. You can determine on a real-world basis whether a stylus still has it, or has had it, and that is to play a record with a known-playable passage of vocals with prominent S sounds, preferably mastered during the '80s when cutting gear was improving to the point that it became possible to engrave high-level sibilant sounds without having to limit or "de-ess" them. I keep a couple of these records handy for go/no-go decisions on used styli I come across.

Click to expand...

How do the "S"s sound if the stylus is worn?

Thanks

wualta said:

Again, ditto tubewade. You can determine on a real-world basis whether a stylus still has it, or has had it, and that is to play a record with a known-playable passage of vocals with prominent S sounds, preferably mastered during the '80s when cutting gear was improving to the point that it became possible to engrave high-level sibilant sounds without having to limit or "de-ess" them. I keep a couple of these records handy for go/no-go decisions on used styli I come across.

Click to expand...

How do the "S"s sound if the stylus is worn?

Thanks

Coop34 said:

How do the "S"s sound if the stylus is worn?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Sound like "SSSHHHHH" instead of a distinct "S" sound.

Exactly. And the SSHH will often be louder than the properly-tracked S. It's a pretty good go/no-go test, because the highs deteriorate first as a stylus wears.

I have a Shure Pro-4 cartridge that I bought new. I researched the correct replacement stylus in newsgroups and vendor sites and came up with the almost unanimous opinion that the Pro-4 is a M92E and can use the N92E, N104E, N110E, etc. stylus. I ordered a JICO N104E. When I went to install it I realized that it is not the right stylus - it physically will not fit. I should have looked closer before ordering, but the cartridge says PRO 4 on the front. I flipped down the stylus guard and discovered that it says SHURE EJ on the front of the stylus. The stylus is green. My cartridge is not a P-mound as others have said. After more searching I have concluded that it takes the NDC-EJ stylus. I have ordered the "JICO S.A.S. replacement for Shure NDC-EJ NDC-ED NDC-HE needle stylus", which looks like the one I have (except black instead of green). The Shure cross reference list describes the the NDC-EJ as having a black body - not green. Can anyone shed some light on this? Did I make the correct choice?

UPDATE: My SAS stylus arrived yesterday - exactly 6 weeks after I ordered it. JICO was very good about answering my email and good with their prediction of shipping date.

You did, and it'll sound great.

Shure called the cartridge you have (an M95 body shell with a weird mounting cap) "Pro4". There also exists an M92E-clone p-mount called "Pro-4".
Note that the 2004 Shure Discontinued Phono Cartridge and Stylus Cross-Reference Chart errs here, calling the Pro-4 p-mount a standard mount cartridge using the NDC-EJ stylus. It doesn't even list a Pro4. This error is likely the source of the confusion.


But who cares-- you're getting the SAS!

You will love the SAS stylus. It will elevate your cartridges performance to the top level, comparing pretty favourably with any top level moving magnet cartridge.

Yes, your cartridge must be an NDC, which Shure also called "Designer Series" and, as wualta said, it is an M95 generator with an annoying cap designed to limit stylus interchangeability. On the bright side, the NDC styli will fit practically all other Shure non-V15 cartridges.

Wade

Yes, and there's a hidden advantage to the NDC /"Designer Series" cartridges when used with the SAS-- they tend to be off spec in their inductance, and consistently on the high side. Often above 800mH, the highest I've ever measured in a Shure body.

So what? The higher inductance makes it that much less likely that the SAS will sound "bright" in your system. Nobody likes "bright". Think of it as hidden insurance.